Most general observers who attended Halls 6, 19 and 20 at Birmingham’s National Exhibition Centre (NEC) in late May were thoroughly impressed by IFSEC 2001. While it would be true to say that leaps of faith were not in abundance in terms of the product developments on offer, interesting variations to existing themes there were a-plenty – not least in the CCTV arena.
However, were there any tangible pieces of salient and practical advice for end users? What are the overriding messages for CCTV ‘customers’ who visited the CCTV Village?
From the system providers’ point of view, surely it’s only a matter of convincing the customers that the latest technology is in their best interests – or is it?
In essence, the UK’s CCTV market can be divided into two separate sectors: CCTV equipment and the management of CCTV systems. The former is, of course, a multi-million pound business, supported by a battery of marketing and technical literature. It’s impossible to miss the message.
However, CCTV system managers often have to struggle very hard to be heard. They do not have anything like the ‘marketing budget’ of their cousin, but are without doubt the most important strand of the ‘screen scene’.
So how can you assess these – occasionally competing – areas?
An overview of what transpired at IFSEC 2001 is as good a place to start as any.
Those SMT readers who are really interested in the latest camera and recording technologies can examine the equipment in detail by visiting their preferred manufacturers, etc. What we are really interested in here are the management issues those technologies engender.
Pinpointing the management issues
The exhibition catalogue set the scene by stating that “a visit to The CCTV Village makes it easy to find and compare the equipment you need”. And, indeed, the range of equipment on offer in 2001 was impressive – including ideas for the total security solution, integrated building security access, wireless cameras and Internet-based camera servers, networked digital video and networked cameras, CCTV Web servers, CCTV log books and management systems, ANPR and biometric identification and (last but not least) security system integration software.
Over 200 exhibitors held court in The CCTV Village, more than half of whom are UK based, and they were offering an equal number of camera products, transmission systems and digital video recorders (each ‘sector’ accounting for 25% of the turn out).
The remaining 25% was accounted for by lens manufacturers, intelligent systems, analogue tapes, control room furniture providers and a minute group who actually addressed the requirements of CCTV system managers. These requirements, of course, include training, recruitment, advice on national standards, tape management, leasing and the problems surrounding insurance.
Systems on view were highly impressive. There was a significant emphasis on integrated, scalable systems, so too the migration towards networked solutions.
One manufacturer was even exhorting end users to ‘leverage the Internet to deliver better physical security’.
That said, The CCTV Village was nothing if not confusing for the average end user. There was precious little evidence there to suggest that systems providers are fully aware of the practical concerns of CCTV Control Room managers and the like.
The CCTV sector has often been accused of a sales-driven, ‘box-shifting’ approach to the way in which it does business. This may be a tad unfair but, judging by this author’s investigations at the NEC, few manufacturers are able to explain the benefits of their systems from an end user’s point of view. Phrases such as ‘versatile’, ‘compression ratio’, ‘complete solution’ and ‘state-of-the-art’ were trotted out like confetti whenever questions were posed regarding the merits of a particular piece of kit.
Practicalities, not technicalities
In fact, the general standard of explanation available for the average CCTV system manager was overly technical.
Most stands were manned by technical and marketing personnel who knew a good deal about their company’s products, but there was a distinct lack of end user-related case studies. Case studies that would have shown the benefits of a particular system’s operation once installed and commissioned.
This begs a question. What exactly is the purpose of CCTV manufacturers exhibiting at IFSEC? Is it a serious attempt to make contacts in the market, or is it a case of merely keeping up appearances?
Perhaps the approach taken can be linked to the current Government’s determination to throw away millions of pounds of public money on funding unsubstantiated claims regarding the effectiveness of CCTV systems. This is not to belittle the excellent technical descriptions presently available, but the lack of appreciation of end user concerns is glaringly obvious.
End users are in real need of cohesive guidance. Guidance that they’re not receiving from the manufacturers. Instead, they have to turn to security consultants for advice.
In reality, the end user’s requirements are quite simple and straightforward. ‘Why should I buy this equipment?’, ‘What benefits will I gain from using it?’, ‘How do I relate the system to my operational requirements?’. In many instances, manufacturers feel that their duty is to explain the technicalities of their equipment. That’s only half the story. They must also be able to discuss prospective operational requirements with their clients.
The operational requirement is the only point that matters in all discussions of CCTV systems and their associated equipment. Without this area being subject to proper examination, it’s really not possible to convince a potential buyer that a given piece of equipment should be purchased.
Jim Aldridge of the Police Scientific Development Branch made this point in his seminar on digital imaging. In response to a complicated query regarding digital compression ratios, Aldridge remarked: “These points will be identified and resolved only by a thorough operational requirement procedure. That will provide end users with the necessary operating specification for a system. Any equipment can then be specified against this.”
Alas, end users themselves seldom produce anything like a proper operational requirement. Now there’s an area that could be tackled by its very own exhibition stand…
Equipment manufacturers have to learn that it’s of no use whatsoever to explain the ‘technical wizardry’ and ‘value for money’ of any particular system in splendid isolation. It would be much better to provide the end user with a series of scenarios, and then explain the relative merits of the kit in question.
In this way, these merits can be directly related to real-life scenarios, some of which may be similar to their own experiences.
If this were to happen, there would be a two-fold outcome. First, the system provider would have a better chance of making a sale thanks to increased end user confidence. Second, the CCTV sector will improve its reputation quite considerably by really considering and assisting its end user fraternity.
At IFSEC 2001, the CCTV equipment on display exhibited a common theme. That of ‘technical overkill’. As computer baseline specifications have greatly increased in recent years, this has been reflected in CCTV systems’ technical ability. The problem for manufacturers is how best to balance technological advance with the real life ability of end users to deploy such wizardry.
The CCTV seminar programme
IFSEC did offer plenty of good information for the discerning end user, though, with the CCTV-focused seminar programme providing excellent value for money.
The seminars – including advice on practical and design issues for both covert and night-time CCTV – were aimed directly at CCTV system managers and were all well-attended. A clear indication of the lack of good quality management guidance available.
Arguably the most eagerly-anticipated seminar was that devoted to the controversial topic of digital imaging, presided over by Jim Aldridge and Mike Batchelor, the CCTV manager at Wycombe District Council.
Aldridge brought end users up-to-speed with the current state of research into the practicalities of using digital images for evidential purposes. Overall, Aldridge claimed that their use causes little or no problems, and is already something of a success story.
However, he went on to state that there are several “ongoing practical difficulties” that need to be ironed out. These relate specifically to the cost to the police service and Crown Prosecution Service for buying appropriate review equipment, in addition to “technical shortcomings” at the image copying stage.
Mike Batchelor stressed that digital recording systems do save money, at the same time rendering far better quality images.
The major disappointment as far as the seminar programme was concerned centred on the non-appearance of Roy Henderson from the Home Office. He was due to speak on the Government’s plans for the future of CCTV surveillance. Peter Fry of the CCTV User Group addressed the topic in general terms in filling-in for Roy, but many in the audience were concerned that the Home Office did not provide a replacement speaker.
Jonathan Bamford’s discourse on the Data Protection Act was little short of a showstopper. As assistant commissioner to the Director of Public Prosecutions, he enunciated the intricacies of the Act in relation to CCTV systems. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen so much note-taking at a seminar.
The final seminar, entitled ‘Can CCTV improve our quality of life?’, was probably the most thought-provoking. To this end, Leicester University’s Adrian Beck posed some awkward questions concerning the extravagant claims and limited evidence regarding the effectiveness of CCTV systems. Questions that still need to be answered by systems providers.
What truisms have end users gained from this year’s IFSEC? Simple. Learn from the seminars, badger equipment manufacturers to try harder when it comes to addressing the end user at the exhibition proper.
One truth we mustn’t forget here is that end users and systems manufacturers are not really speaking the same language. The main challenge that lies before the industry is how we can bridge that gap.
