by Brianna Crandall — December 16, 2015—Boon Edam, Netherlands-based global provider of entry solutions, says it has installed thousands of campus entry solutions, talked to end users all over the world, and developed a comprehensive process for choosing the right security entrance. However, the company concedes that no process is perfect, and it has come to observe that certain organizations will consider some of the decision criteria quite well but leave out one or two factors. Boon Edam calls these the “Gotchas” — when forgetting or ignoring any one of the criteria, a company can end up with a security entrance that does not address its needs.
Before installation, purchase decisions are often weighted towards security, aesthetics and ROI. After installation, throughput, training, service and safety play a more prominent role.
Boon Edam divides the entrance solution decision-making process into two parts: before installation and after. Before installation, purchase decisions are often weighted towards security, aesthetics and return on investment (ROI). After installation, however, and once there is no going back, throughput, training, service and safety play a more prominent role.
While initially aesthetics or security usually jump out as paramount, all seven decision factors contribute to an effective security solution. For most decisions, the criteria before installation are relatively prominent and well understood. Where the “Gotchas” rear their less-than-pleasant heads is in the pesky factors that often do not occur to the decision-makers until the new security entrance has been installed.
According to Boon Edam, after installation, it is crucial to incorporate each of the following criteria into a comprehensive decision-making process in order to select the right solution for a campus.
User Throughput
1. Throughput (how quickly authorized individuals can enter your facility) affects users directly on a daily basis and is critical to user acceptance of a new security entrance. Before committing to a particular kind of entrance solution, carefully and manually calculate the throughput requirements for the entrances, ideally during a five-minute rush hour period. Note deliveries and wheelchairs. Do not rely solely on access control numbers if the facility has swinging doors, as multiple tailgaters could enter on a single authorization and reduce the count. Once the counts are obtained, research security entrances’ throughput specs. It is also worthwhile to inquire if a solution allows for card stacking, which is explained in the following example:
Example: A Houston-based company installed an array of optical turnstiles in their regional headquarters lobby. Unfortunately, they did not research throughput numbers, and the turnstiles they installed required each user to badge in and walk through the turnstile, and then for the turnstile barrier to reclose before the next user. During peak times, lines would form. Eventually, the company decided to replace the turnstiles in favor of a model that allowed multiple registrations with access control (card stacking) prior to entering and also kept its barriers open as long as all of the users were authorized. The difference was a major increase in throughput from 22 to 60 people per minute per lane.
Technical and End User Training
2. Training usually is not considered a major factor when choosing an entry product, yet it is key to long-term success and customer satisfaction. Since most manufacturers do not directly install their products, they should provide a comprehensive technical training program and some form of certification to create successful service providers for end users.
Example: A financial services company purchased an array of high security portals to protect a sensitive area for records and data. A few months after installation, which had been supervised by the manufacturer, one of the portals required service because it was rejecting authorized users. When a technician from the local distributor arrived, he took one look at the portal and said, “I’ve never seen one of these before.” He then spent hours on the phone with the manufacturer to receive on-the-fly training. Clearly, there was a training disconnect between the manufacturer and the distributor.
Service Considerations
3. Service considerations typically come last or not at all when making a buying decision. Yet during and after installation, the level of service directly impacts continued operations and ROI. Consider the negative impact of a delayed installation or service visit, or delayed parts availability on building entrance procedures — all because service was left out of the decision-making process.
Example: A Philadelphia office tower installed two optical turnstiles in its main lobby that matched the building’s aesthetics beautifully. After a few years, one of the turnstiles stopped working and a part had to be ordered from Europe — downtime was estimated at four weeks. With only two opticals in the lobby, having one out of service was unacceptable, so the owner immediately began looking into replacing the turnstiles. Elsewhere in Pennsylvania, a Pittsburgh hospital had a security door that was out of service. Management was shocked to find out that the nearest authorized service provider was over eight hours away — Gotcha!
Product Safety
4. Safety, too, is rarely discussed during the bidding process. However, it is the one factor that could quickly and possibly tragically undermine the success of the project. Most security entrances use a barrier of some kind. The more sophisticated barriers use presence sensors to detect objects or users. Before buying, ask how a product prevents entrapment or contact, and how it responds to either event. The answers should then be weighed against security vs. safety needs, users and their ability to be trained, the product’s response to an incident during peak periods (does it stop and require re-badging?), and whether large objects are typically carried or pulled behind.
Example: A California software company wanted a secure revolving door that only allowed authorized users to enter at night and also provided piggybacking prevention. During the day, however, they wanted the same door to allow the public to enter along with any children for a daycare center inside. The architect was unaware that piggybacking prevention and public use do not mix very well, especially with children involved. A security revolving door requires users to be trained. The door’s small quadrants, which are ideal for a single person and piggybacking prevention, lack the trailing door wing sensors that large automatic revolvers must have for public safety. This is because such sensors would stop the door far too often. Due to frequent contact incidents, the company decided the public need was greater than the piggybacking prevention and they had to incur the expense of replacing it with a manual revolving door that had a night-locking feature with an access control system to allow off-hours employee access.
Campus Culture
In addition to the seven crucial decision factors discussed so far, there is one more factor to consider: culture. Culture permeates all the other decision factors and is critical to success. Do people care about their personal safety in Boise at the same level as those in Manhattan? Are all management stakeholders involved in the buying decision, from CEO to finance to human resources to administration to residence life to the facilities manager? Is there high employee turnover or students requiring recurring training? Campus safety decision makers should understand their campus or company culture and be willing to assist in implementing a culture shift through communication and training.
Example: A state university in North Carolina installed optical turnstiles with drop arm barriers at its recreational facility to prevent unauthorized access to gym equipment and reduce liability. A receptionist registers each student with the access control system and then opens the barriers. This ensures that freshman get an orientation to entrance procedures. Eventually, over several years the university will phase in a biometric access control system that will allow bypassing the receptionist. At first, it will be voluntary, rewarding those who register with an expedited entry. Eventually, it will be universal. This staged approach ensures a smooth culture shift.
Example: Another more drastic example of culture affecting the deployment of security solutions happened a few years ago at a West Coast Internet company. A new CEO was hired, and he ordered the turnstiles in the front lobby to be removed because “this company isn’t about barriers.” So, it pays to inform the CEO of new security measures and why such measures were taken! Speaking of the West Coast, some companies allow dogs to come to work, which greatly affects which security entrances can be used safely and effectively.
Boon Edam recaps that the success (or failure) of a security entrance project must start and end with a comprehensive, consultative process that considers the full range of factors for the ultimate decision. As illustrated above, a conscientious leader can preside over a process that includes most of the eight essential criteria. However, forget one and even a careful, comprehensive effort can result in a big “Gotcha” that brings a new security entrance project to a crashing halt.
