Since 2006, the LUSAX research program at Lund University in Sweden has investigated the effects of digitisation on the physical security industry

Since 2006, the LUSAX research program at Lund University in Sweden has investigated the effects of digitisation on the physical security industry. This article will look into the forces driving digitisation, and how those forces broadly translate and impacts the physical security industry.

Historically, physical security systems have moved from purely mechanical systems into systems holding both mechanical and electronic low-voltage circuit-based components. Development was pushed further forward when digital components emerged in the late 1980’s with the introduction of Digital Video Recorders (DVRs). And from 1996, when Sweden-based Axis Communications claims to have introduced the first network-enabled surveillance camera, digital components were further introduced into physical security systems. From a strategic business point of view, the digital shift most importantly brought with it new ways of doing business. Currently it is more common to observe novel and potentially more efficient business models challenging the proprietary and integrated one-brand manufacturer-distributor-integrator model historically associated with the industry.

However, from an end-user point of view, the primary objective of a security system is still to protect organisational assets from harmful action. Preferably this is achieved by means of pro-active deterrence, and secondarily by direct prevention. Any change in the underlying technology – mechanical or digital – needs to be evaluated against these objectives. In order for technological advancements to be value adding, it needs to either strengthen the overall performance – both in terms of functional and non-functional requirements – of the current system, or lower costs for the same performance.

In the case of a video surveillance system, the purpose of the system could be to decrease the number of shoplifting incidents at a store by means of temporarily storing the snapshots or shorter video sequences of customers visiting the store. Two examples of advancements associated with digital surveillance cameras may for example be superior performance in terms of picture quality and ease of access to the recorded material compared to previous generations of surveillance cameras. But, it could also be to protect assets against unintended harmful actions, for example in protecting co-workers from exiting areas with sensitive business information. Furthermore, digital systems have been suggested to have potential value in improving core value-adding operations. A prime example of this feature is the track-and-trace functionality in parcel shipment. Finally, the potential of pre-programmed self-diagnostics is another example of feature associated with future digital systems.

Why digitisation happens

When Sweden-based Axis Communications claims to have introduced the first network-enabled surveillance camera, digital components were further introduced into physical security systems

More broadly, digitisation is tightly coupled to what is referred to as Moore’s Law within the computing industry. First formulated by Gordon Moore at Intel in the early 1960’s, it proposed that computing capacity doubles every 12 months. Put in other terms, if we enter a computer store to buy computing power in June 2013 for one dollar, we would receive double the amount of computing power in June 2014 for the same amount of dollar. Gordon Moore was proven right, although slight modifications to the law have been added. The current doubling-speed in terms of computing power happens every 24 months. While this is merely a computational law, the business-consequences are important. Assuming a doubling of computing power every 24 months creates business opportunities for entrepreneurs that can translate the computing power into business-serving concepts at a low cost. This creates a strong cost-pressure on firms to consider digitising and even automating parts of the value-adding process. Examples of professional categories that have been affected by automation are for example secretaries, travel agents and bank tellers.

Moore’s law may impact industries in mainly two distinct manners: The first being digitisation that enhances the physical and manual activities – referred to as a kind of digital overlay to the current activities. The second one having more fundamental impact on an industry in the form of automation – simply substituting manual labour with (digital) machines, like in the case of the professions mentioned earlier.

Reasons for a slower pace of digitisation

Consequently, the key decision is not to ignore digitisation as a mere ‘gadget shift’, but rather to ask the question - in what way will Moore´s law impact my industry sector? Will Moore’s Law digitally reinforce and complement current work-practices according to the digital overlay-scenario, or will it simply substitute manual security labour gradually? The evidence the LUSAX-team has collected the past 9 years suggests a slower than expected, gradual and complementary development compared to other industries. We see three main reasons to a slower development speed.

The first (1) being the nature of security systems, they are to deter harmful action that is based on non-standardised behaviour. The intruder is actively attempting to outsmart the system. Routine business tasks, like registering invoices is a routine that once established may easily be duplicated and lends itself easily to digitisation and automation. Quite the opposite – and due to the variation in the intruder’s behaviour –duplication of the external qualities of a security system across an organisation would represent a risk in itself.

In the case of the physical security industry, the evidence collected by the LUSAX group suggests a more slow-moving digitisation more associated with the digitally enhancing scenario

Secondly (2), the service-level of security systems should be near fail-safe. Everyday use of IT-based services is associated with a higher degree of acceptance to operational disruptions, meaning users and organisations tolerate a lower than fail-safe performance-level compared to security systems. This is sometimes refereed to as the Beta-culture of the IT-industry. In turn, this generates a more conservative approach to experimentation with new technologies among security practitioners that makes digitisation a slower-moving process compared to other sectors.

Third (3) and finally, while it is true that security management has increased in importance from a corporate point of view the past decades, security management still is redundancy and contingency-centric. This in turn hampers a rapid diffusion of digital security innovations. On the other hand, strategic management more generally concerns itself with achieving organisational goals by actively taking risks in a lean and non-redundancy direction. This orientation lends itself more compatible with the automation scenario, for example reducing the need to keep parts of the corporate accounting, marketing or R&D staff internally.

Summary

In this article we have briefly introduced Moore’s Law as a broad driver of digitisation. The effects of digitisation may impact industries differently. Either disruptively - basically gradually reducing the need for manual execution of current work practices, or enhance activities by means of digitisation. In the case of the physical security industry, the evidence collected by the LUSAX group suggests a more slow-moving digitisation more associated with the digitally enhancing scenario.

Download PDF version

Author profile

Markus Lahtinen Researcher and Lecturer at Lund University, LUSAX Security Informatics

Markus Lahtinen holds a Master’s degree in Informatics (2001) and a Bachelor's degree in Business Administration and Economics (2006). The past ten years he has been active as lecturer at the Department of Informatics at the School of Economics and Management, teaching mainly Interaction Design but also given classes on Decision Support Systems, UML, IT and organisation, and supervising theses work for students at Bachelor and Master level.

In case you missed it

High-speed airport-screening systems will improve soft target security
High-speed airport-screening systems will improve soft target security

Several recent terrorist and mass violence attacks have been directed at soft targets, or relatively unprotected locations where people gather such as outside a music venue or in the unscreened passenger areas at airports. Attacks in public areas have led to the development of new security technologies aimed at protecting soft targets. One company addressing the challenges is Evolv Technology and its Edge automated high-speed personnel screening solution. The system integrates walkthrough firearm and explosive detection for high-throughput protection of events and soft targets.The Edge system has multiple detection sensitivity settings to respond to various threat scenarios Enhanced visitor experience The system seeks to increase security without compromising the ‘customer experience’. People simply walk through single-file – between two 5-foot-tall stanchions. One lane can screen up to 800 people per hour, and the system detects explosives or metallic objects without the need for pat-downs or wands or other invasive procedures. Any personal belongings can remain in visitors’ pockets. A single security guard is needed for each lane to verify any detected threats. “The system combines an improved security posture with a better visitor experience,” says Mike Ellenbogen, CEO of Evolv Technology. “We need to fly and have been trained to be screened at the airport, but we don’t expect to be screened going to see a ball game or a Mozart concert. Evolv recognised a need for a new way to inspect people before they enter these types of facilities. It’s a seamless system that pulls various technologies together. We want to feel safe but without having to sacrifice the quality of the experience.”Screening analytics provide data on the numbers of people screened by time of day and by result The system combines millimetre wave and magnetic field sensors, along with artificial intelligence (AI)/ machine learning and can incorporate additional data such as biometrics. Known bad actors can be identified using facial recognition. The system has multiple detection sensitivity settings to respond to various threat scenarios. Expanding perimeter protection A security guard provides the human touch by verifying any threats detected by the system. The locations of concealed items are displayed on a photo of the individual using a color-coded box overlay. Screening analytics provide data on the numbers of people screened by time of day and by result. Ellenbogen says the company is working to have the system adopted at entertainment venues, performing arts centres, sports centres, for air and rail transportation, and to protect high-profile government buildings. The Edge system can expand the protected perimeter to a wider area that was previously unprotected. The Edge system can expand the protected perimeter to a wider area that was previously unprotected For example, concert-goers exited the arena of an Ariana Grande concert May 22, 2017, in Manchester, U.K., and entered the surrounding area that was unscreened and unsecured. Placing a user-friendly screening system around a wider perimeter outside the concert venue might have prevented the use of an improvised explosive device in the terrorist attack.Placing a user-friendly screening system around a wider perimeter outside the concert venue might have prevented the use of an improvised explosive device in the terrorist attack Threat mitigation with soft target approach Likewise, a 2016 bombing at the Brussels Airport occurred in the departure hall outside the passenger screening areas. Securing a wider perimeter – for example, screening customers discreetly as they enter the airport building from a parking area – could have provided additional security against such an attack. Ellenbogen confirms Evolv has sold a number of systems to major European airports to screen visitors and passengers as they enter the front door. “Addressing the threat to an airport or train system is different than screening passengers; we are looking for different types of objects and different types of materials. The idea is to be able to detect threats to a venue before they get into the venue.” The soft target approach can also be applied to public buildings, such as courthouses, and used in lieu of more invasive metal detectors and x-ray machines. The portability of the Edge system enables a ‘pop-up’ approach to security – i.e., to relocate the system to address specific or changing security threats easily. The self-contained system only requires a wall plug. Labour reduction (because of faster throughput) can help offset the system costs but it’s difficult to quantify the improvement in the visitor experienceImproving security posture at event venues “It’s surprising the level of importance [venue owners] put on the visitor experience,” says Ellenbogen. “They see that their brand starts at the front door. They are eager to find alternative security solutions that come across as more inviting, less imposing, less closed down, less invasive than the solutions they have been using,” he says. “They are driven by a desire to improve the visitor experience as they improve the security posture.” He says current events, including terrorist attacks and mass shootings, drive awareness among venue owners to improve the security of soft targets. “The level of interest is high, and it spikes somewhat when there is a big headline,” Ellenbogen says. He notes that the system is more expensive than a metal detector, but about a third the cost of familiar airport body scanners. Labour reduction (because of faster throughput) can help offset the system costs, but “it’s difficult to quantify the improvement in the visitor experience,” Ellenbogen says.

How to make school security effective and unobtrusive for students
How to make school security effective and unobtrusive for students

Schools today are charged to provide an environment that is both safe and conducive to learning, which can be difficult considering the range of security incidents and challenges they face, including bullying, fights, graffiti, theft and more. In addition to working within often tight budgetary constraints, a main challenge is to provide the highest level of security in an aesthetically pleasing way that doesn’t make students feel as if they are in prison. While these two needs may seem mutually exclusive to some degree, that doesn’t have to be the case. School security can be achieved without building 20-foot walls or putting barbed wire around the perimeter. The key to balancing the security and learning environment can be found in the four pillars of a good school security strategy, namely people, practices, technology and physical environment. A mobile app or text notification system could be used to alert students and staff of potential problems Situational awareness One of the most effective measures to take is to educate staff and even students to learn to be aware about their surroundings and adopt the 'If you see something, say something' mentality. In an emergency, time is of the essence, so the speed of response becomes critical. Educating staff and students to recognise potential problems and report them is a good first step. Augmenting this with mobile apps and/or texting capabilities, for example, that allow someone to send a photo to school security or law enforcement for quick assessment and evaluation, can speed response even more. A mobile app or text notification system could also be used to alert students and staff of potential problems and provide instructions on what steps to take in order to remain safe. By providing real-time situational awareness about potential responses, these types of technologies can reduce the number of armed guards or resource officers needed to patrol a school or campus, which also makes students more comfortable and able to learn in a non-prison-like environment. Security best practices Every school should establish a set of security policies and procedures and ensure that staff and students understand what to do if they suspect a problem or if an incident should unfold at the school. However, too often, schools may not know where to start when seeking out best practices. And once these policies are in place, there may be confusion about how to audit them to ensure people are properly educated. The NFPA has begun work on a school security standard that would address a range of issues schools face on a daily basis A number of organisations are available to aid with this process, such as the Partner Alliance for School Safety a group founded in cooperation with SIA (Security Industry Association), which provides resources and tools to help schools and security professionals evaluate and establish the best security protection for their buildings. These guidelines and best practices are designed to help schools spend their often limited funds on the right security solutions. Safe and Sound Schools provides downloadable school security toolkits, and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has recently released the NFPA 3000 Active shooter response guidelines and has begun work on a school security standard that would address a range of issues schools face on a daily basis. The key takeaway is that the information is out there, and the organisations mentioned above are excellent resources for helping schools create safe, secure and learning-conducive environments. Technology in school security The second thing that needs to be considered is how technology can be brought to bear to contribute to school security. Video surveillance with video analytics can be deployed to monitor areas at certain times of day. For example, once school starts, there shouldn’t be a lot of activity in the parking lot or in particular areas around the school. For these situations, intelligent cameras with video analytics can be used to detect activity in those areas of interest to alert school security that something may need their attention. This might be a vehicle entering a lot or driving against the normal traffic flow, which may simply be a parent arriving to pick their child up early, or it could be something worth following up on. Radar detection is ideal for perimeters, where a device can be set up unobtrusively to alert when someone enters a particular area In any case, this is something that should be brought to the attention of someone who can quickly assess the situation and determine what, if any, response is needed. Because the goal in a potentially dangerous situation is speed response times. The faster you’re able to detect something using technology, the faster you’re able to respond. Therefore, being able to identify something happening in a parking lot and alert school resource officers could provide 30 seconds or a minute head start for response, which can get the school into a lockdown situation and get first responders on site more quickly.Facial recognition systems and providing access through smartphones could help create a more welcoming and secure environment for students, staff and parents After-hour monitoring solutions Monitoring buildings and facilities after hours presents a different set of challenges. For sporting events, the National Center for Spectator Sports and Security (NCS4) at the University of Southern Mississippi provides best practice guidance for sporting facilities and events not only just for universities but even including those at high schools. It’s been shown that using lighting at night can deter crime. However, it can be expensive to keep a building and grounds illuminated all night, every night. To mitigate these concerns and potential costs, there are video cameras available with extreme low-light capability that allows them to see in near-dark or in some cases complete darkness. This allows a school to save money by turning lights off while achieving a level of surveillance performance similar to daytime deployments. Radar detection Another technology for effective school security, both during and after school hours, is radar detection. This is ideal for perimeters, where a device can be set up unobtrusively to alert when someone enters a particular area. Radar can be deployed with a single PTZ camera, which can track whatever has been detected to provide real-time situational awareness for a school resource officer or law enforcement to investigate to determine the potential threat, if any, related to the perimeter breach.Following the four pillars of school security can ease the process while improving the effectiveness and efficiency of securing educational facilities More often than not, schools are faced with issues that are not necessarily the worst-case scenario everyone fears, such as how to identify parents and others who are authorised to pick a child up from school early. In this instance, facial recognition systems and providing access through smartphones could help create a more welcoming and secure environment for students, staff and parents. Lighting and landscaping In addition to technology, one of the things that can contribute to a safer school environment is environmental design. CPTED provides four basic principles, one of which is natural surveillance, which follows a 'see and be seen' philosophy. In other words, when people know they can be seen, they are less likely to commit a crime. The main points in this general principle are lighting and landscaping. For example, a school doesn’t want to block potentially vulnerable areas with landscaping, so the height and thickness of any potential landscaping elements should be carefully considered. In general, openness and visibility should be the guiding factors. Securing physical environment Another aspect of the physical environment is maintenance. If a window gets broken but isn’t fixed right away, that tends to invite vandalism. These are just two of the guidelines CPTED offers for creating a more secure environment that doesn’t feel like a prison. In general, finding the right mix between maintaining security and providing a welcoming, aesthetically pleasing and learning-conducive environment can seem like a difficult – if not impossible – task. Following the four pillars of school security can ease the process while improving the effectiveness and efficiency of securing educational facilities.

Has consolidation shifted to the security integrator/installer market?
Has consolidation shifted to the security integrator/installer market?

Consolidation – a decrease in the number of companies in a market achieved through mergers and acquisitions (M&A) – has been an important trend among manufacturers in the physical security market for many years. More recently, the trend has also appeared to extend to the integrator market. Larger integrators have been buying up other large integrators; in some cases, they have also been buying up smaller, regional integrators to expand their geographic coverage area. We wondered if this week’s Expert Panel Roundtable has noticed the trend. We asked: Has consolidation among security companies shifted to the integrator/installer market? What is the impact?