Making the case for monitoring

By Colin Walters of Remote Video Response

CCTV monitoring has come a long way since the first systems were trialled more than 20 years ago. Almost immediately the debate started as to whether electronic surveillance technology would one day replace manned guarding as the solution of choice for protecting remote locations, and today – perhaps moreso than ever – the case for monitoring is the strongest it has ever been.

Besides the extent to which new technology has improved and become more reliable, the biggest driver is one of cost. Now with the introduction of licensing, the 48-hour week, the minimum wage, the congestion charge, an obligation for increased training etc, costs of manned guarding have risen alarmingly. Now there are areas where manned guarding cannot hope to compete with its technological equivalents. Businesses that have multiple sites or more especially remote depots cannot logistically or financially afford to employ manned guards. The two solutions cannot be compared.

Imagine a scenario where a company that has large quantities of stock to protect and uses manned guards to do this out of hours. Because of the issues outlined above, the guarding company is having to increase its charges, and because of restrictions on working time they are also have to increase the number of guards employed. Understandably they need to pass these costs on to their customer, but there’s comes a point at which the customer no longer wants to pay.

In addition to cost, there is the emotive issue of trust. Wherever manned guards are deployed, there is always the potential for fraud. Human failures being what they are, temptation is often difficult to ignore. There is also the question of reliability. It is not unheard of for security officers to fall asleep on the job, putting both themselves – and the premises they are protecting – at risk.

But that’s not to say that there aren’t benefits to manned guarding. Having security officers on site is generally more convenient for taking deliveries, for example, outside of office hours, and providing a range of value-added services such as Front of House (eg reception duties), Back Office (eg Post room), and Concierge. All, however, come at a cost.

A remotely monitored CCTV solution has a range of benefits over manned guarding. It is more reliable (cameras do not fall asleep), and it is also more effective. Guards can only be in one place at one time, whereas cameras can view multiple incidents, respond to multiple alarms, and direct resources to those alarms accordingly. Monitoring means having the ability to deal not only with an event on site, but also liaise with and direct the emergency response services simultaneously.

In addition, there are the broader advantages that CCTV monitoring brings: 

• Provides instant deterrent to intruders before any damage is done
• Visually verifies an alarm and passes it to the police. URN numbers are available for compliant systems
• Provides effective links to professional keyholding services
• Digitally records images of evidential quality for subsequent Court actions
• Controls out of hours access to sites, including operating gates, barriers, lights etc
• Provides 24/7 independent remote site protection and peace of mind

One of the greatest barriers, traditionally, to the wider take-up of remote monitoring is its cost. Now the technology has been proven, the cost argument needs to be won.

Take as an example, Company A that has 10 sites, and wants to upgrade its security over a three-year term.

• A typical guard costs £41,000 per year.
• Over three years, the cost will be £123,000 per site.
• Across 10 sites the total will be £1,230,000.

Now compare the cost of a monitored CCTV system.

• A typical install cost (one-off cost) on a like-for-like requirement would be £35,000.
• An annual monitoring charge is £3,000 and maintenance £3,000 
• Cost for a three year period per site amounts to £53,000
• Across 10 sites, the cost is £530,000.

Not only is a monitored system more effective, but it is also radically cheaper – in this example by as much as £700,000!

Of course, there are examples where manned guarding and CCTV monitoring can work effectively together; it is not always a case of straight replacement. Technology can reduce the number of guards required on a site by helping make those that remain more effective. It can direct them to incidents as they occur, for example, and perform random patrols electronically, rather than physically. In an age of increasing corporate liability and more stringent EH&S legislation, they can also keep a reliable eye on lone workers working in hazardous environments.

New standards in intruder and CCTV are of course driving quality within the security industry. They now give the end-user something he has always been looking for - a benchmark to more realistically and accurately compare and contrast different security solutions. Licensing too is about improving quality, but the increased cost is now making many a risk manager look again at what technology has to offer: better more reliable security, at an affordable cost.