The Rotakin Conundrum

Although operational ‘in anger’ for little more than 12 months, Harlow-based CCTV In Focus is a thoroughly interesting proposition if you’re an end user of surveillance systems – and let’s face it, these days there aren’t many security professionals at managerial or director level who don’t fit it into that substantial sub-set.

For the 15-year period leading up to 2007, colleagues Adrian Archer and Andy Hays had been working with private sector businesses, public sector organisations, security forces and all manner of law enforcement authorities around the world, their engineering company dutifully manufacturing and supplying Rotakin (the CCTV testing device developed by the Home Office that rather resembles those cardboard cut-out human targets you find at the end of a police firing range). However, there was a slight problem.

“The product didn’t sit well within our product range as a whole,” explained Adrian Archer as I chatted with him and Hays at Ludgate House, the City-based headquarters of SMT Online and info4security.com. “As a consequence, the marketing and sales efforts we devoted to the Rotakin offering were beginning to suffer.”

Archer and Hays bit the bullet and duly established a separate company – designated Rotatest – designed to market and distribute the Rotakin offering alone. “Some initial success was achieved,” chipped in Hays, “and awareness and sales consequently increased. The web site attracted interest from abroad to the extent that overseas sales represented around 25% of all our business.” The APTA (America Public Transport Authority) – among other Stateside concerns – was making positive noises.

“To be honest, though, the potential we believed existed for sales of this product within the UK CCTV industry still wasn’t being realised.”

Investigation into lost sales potential

Leaving no stone unturned, early on in 2006 Archer and Hayes instigated an investigation in a bid to understand why sales in the UK weren’t up to scratch.

“We collated a lot of anecdotal evidence that larger organisations would specify CCTV to be installed and checked to Rotakin standards,” urged Archer. “Installers would buy a Rotakin, but then wouldn’t bother using it, or didn’t know how to use it correctly. In one instance, a security installer openly admitted to us that he’d never once taken the Rotakin system he’d acquired from us out of the cupboard since it had been delivered.”

Having seen some pretty poor CCTV installations down the years, that comment didn’t raise my eyebrows one little bit.

Later on, when undertaking training on the correct use of Rotakin, Archer and Hays uncovered evidence that Rotakin testing had been specified and documentation signed to say it had been done, but the absence of any pencil marks on the forms produced to record the tests told a very different story.

“It was our experience that installers weren’t always aware that British and European Standards existed for installing and testing CCTV,” continued Archer. “Consequently, they had very little or non-existent knowledge of Rotakin. The motivation to use a standard installation and test procedure simply wasn’t there.”

End users even less well-informed

Again, it came as little surprise to me when Hayes divulged the fact that, with the exception of some practitioners working for larger organisations, end users of CCTV system were even less well-informed about CCTV standards. On that basis, they were unlikely to specify either Rotakin or British and European Standards.

“The installers were in no hurry to inform potential or existing customers,” explained Hays. “They would have rocked the boat, and didn’t want to do that.” It’s all-too-familiar territory, isn’t it?

With a strong desire to test their assumptions still further, Archer and Hayes decided to set a trap for some unsuspecting security installers and see how they measured up. Seven CCTV contractors were invited to quote for the installation of a system that would enhance existing security measures and deter break-ins at an 18,000 square foot industrial plant with only four entry points. The seven companies were very carefully selected such that they represented a cross-section of the contracting fraternity (ie some were large national CCTV installers, while others employed only two or three people).

“Each company representative was shown around the building, and we asked them for their recommendations,” stated Archer. “At no time during the representatives’ visit was a drawing of the building completed, or any accurate measurements taken as is recommended in BS EN 50132-7.”

Genuine shock in store

When the post-visitation quotations arrived, not one company had recommended putting cameras at the two access points to the rear of the building. “Are you serious?” I said. “Oh yes. Very much so,” retorted Hays. Frankly, Ladies and Gentleman, that beggars belief.

The quotations themselves varied in value from only GB pound 1,200 to GB pound 4,500, the number of cameras from four to five. Certain contractors had sited cameras internally, some externally. Recording equipment varied in its capability, while only two of the seven outfits bidding for the job mentioned the necessity for signage (thereby ensuring conformance with the Data Protection Act). That didn’t surprise me in the least, I have to say.

Market research had confirmed the lack of knowledge regarding BS EN Standards, as well as the legal obligations for signage. “This led us to believe that a business opportunity existed in terms of us being able to assist potential and existing users of CCTV systems with planning their surveillance installations,” commented Archer, “and, in due course, having those same systems ‘acceptance tested’.”

On that hunch, during 2007 and the early stages of last year, Archer and Hayes collated data from around the world concerning CCTV system planning and installation standards. Meetings were held with various notable individuals, including Dr Jim Aldridge – whom some of you may know to be the ‘father’ of Rotakin (and the team leader at the Home Office’s research establishment who conducted the work that led, eventually, to BS EN 50132-7 being published).

A great deal of experience relating to CCTV had been gained during the period Archer and Hays were manufacturing, marketing and selling the Rotakin test target. Combined with their knowledge assimilated from working in the highly technical and disciplined environment of manufacturing parts for the defence, aerospace and motor car industries, there was definitely scope for delivering a professional service to end users.

Building up the knowledge base

“We purchased cameras and recording equipment, testing systems time and time and time again under varying conditions and circumstances to further fine-tune our own procedures,” continued Archer. “As our knowledge base was building up, we approached known users of CCTV and undertook audits of their CCTV systems. This enabled us to fine-tune our own documentation and methodology in establishing whether or not the CCTV systems we were looking at had been installed to any recognised standard and, indeed, if they were genuinely fit for purpose.”

All along, Archer and Hays had understood Professor Martin Gill’s assertions that CCTV on its own has limited capabilities when it comes to deterring criminal acts. A study by Ditton and Short in 1998 reported: “Offenders are aware of CCTV’s limitations. Research has shown that 50% of convicted criminals don’t view CCTV as a deterrent.” To realise its full potential, then, it’s clear CCTV must be integrated with other security measures.

“This was never better demonstrated than when we audited a site which held high value consumer items that had a motion-activated CCTV system inside the warehouse,” explained Hays. “Unfortunately, as no proper planning had been undertaken, a SmokeCloak device had also been deployed. All the CCTV system would ever be likely to capture was an impenetrable cloud of smoke.” Not quite what’s required, then.

Bear in mind that this CCTV installation had cost the client many thousands of pounds and, in the eventuality that any break-in should occur, what purpose would it have served? Absolutely none whatsoever is the answer.

“On another high security site,” opined Hays, “an exit point hadn’t been covered, and the lack of use of standardised planning methodology was at the root of this failure as well.”

Training courses for the CCTV end user

Through existing contacts with installers purchasing Rotakin test targets from Rotatest, and once again using tried-and-tested research, Hays and Archer were able to establish a clear need for training in the application and use of the target. No-one outside of the Home Office – who, in any case, would only train military and police personnel – was offering training in the use of Rotakin based on Home Office guidance and BS EN 50132-7.

Archer and Hays’ ‘new commercial baby’ – CCTV In Focus – was therefore set in motion to offer training courses for end users in Rotakin theory and methodology. The company swiftly ended up running courses for police authorities, among them West Yorkshire.

“As some of these courses were held at CCTV users’ establishments,” added Hays, the operations manager for this new venture, “we quickly latched on to a whole range of issues that had resulted from poor planning, inadequate camera specification and installation. Issues that could have been avoided had BS EN 50132-7 recommendations been rigidly followed.”

Archer – CCTV In Focus’ managing director – and Hays also understood that where planning procedures were in place, there was no guarantee that the installation of equipment would meet the requirements of the plan unless independent testing of the final installation was undertaken (preferably by an independent body).

To prove the point, a large national CCTV installer won a contract to install GB pound 15,000 of equipment in a school. The company had been issued with a fully-documented operational requirement plan with which to quote against. The test of the installation quickly determined the operational requirement had been completely ignored.

“The installer had simply dismissed the data rendered in favour of an A4 pen sketch,” added Archer with barely disguised disdain. “The installer spent two days correcting all the faults. It was a time and financial cost they wouldn’t have incurred if they’d done the job correctly the first time around.”

The fact is that the managers of this school and representatives from the local authority and governing body would have been none the wiser until an incident occurred and CCTV images were then required. Only then would they have discovered their expensive security system wasn’t fit for purpose.

Research suggests capital gains

“From our recent experience and based on research we have done, we firmly believe that CCTV system users can save considerable capital sums and greatly enhance the efficiency of their system if regular audits are undertaken,” stressed Archer. “Not only can existing cameras and settings be kept working correctly, but the replacement of equipment may be managed much more effectively.”

Carte blanche replacement of equipment can be avoided by establishing which cameras are working correctly or only need minor adjustments, in turn freeing up capital for other pressing areas within the security system that need upgrading. In these economically trying times, that can only ease the heavy burden of pressure on existing site protection budgets.

CCTV In Focus purports to be the only UK company offering truly independent planning, auditing – to the National Security Inspectorate’s NCP104 benchmark, for example – and assessment of CCTV systems to British and European Standards. Archer and Hays’ operation is non-aligned to any CCTV provider or contractor. There’s no selling or installation of systems going on here. All they offer – but it’s a very important ‘all’ as far as the end user’s concerned – is solid, practical advice on any new installation or the upgrading of legacy projects.

“It’s our desire to guide users through the whole process of acquiring CCTV,” enthused Archer, “right up to and including fully-documented acceptance testing. Rendered images deemed acceptable by some installers are far from it. It’s all about imparting the message that alterations to camera and equipment settings can lead to much improved recorded images.”

To me, this sounds like a Godsend for hard-pushed end users looking to ease the pressures created by trimmed budgets and yet maintain the correct CCTV usage standards. In terms of operational requirement consultancy for new systems, the correct number of cameras will be assessed by trained personnel, and the purpose of each camera (as well as their optimal locations) defined. Then it’s a case of creating a clear requirement and installation plan from which the CCTV contractor can take its lead.

It’s fair to say, also, that image auditing is a valuable tool that’ll ensure CCTV systems keep on producing good quality images throughout their lifecycle. Unless images are fit for purpose they’re no use to the police and the Courts, which negates the point of having surveillance in the first place. When are users going to wise up to this truism? This mantra is by no means a new one.

When run in conjunction with existing maintenance contracts, the auditing option need not be an expensive one. In any case, all audit schedules and records are managed by Hays and Archer such that independent compliance is always the order of the day.

The proof of the pudding…

At my behest, Archer and Hays gladly recounted some startling Case Studies focusing on clients they’ve worked with to try and improve their CCTV installations.

Utility sites, of course, often encompass large areas and have few people working within them. A well-maintained CCTV system is essential at such locations, but the plain truth is that many of them are far from being so.

As a natural resource of life-sustaining importance, water is often taken for granted. So often, so too are large CCTV installations. Cameras are ‘apparently’ installed and commissioned to British Standards, but who’s actually checking and approving that to be the case?

“On this particular site, many cameras were installed purportedly to the British Standard,” suggested Archer. “The required camera test charts as recommended by the Home Office were in the log book, but neither pen nor pencil had been near them. Was the installer holding the information for each of the 30-plus cameras in his head?”

Archer carried on: “You can be assured the installer had been paid in full for a site laced with CCTV, but set to what standard? How do you monitor for the inevitable camera and image degradation if no benchmark has been established? How is the system maintained and, more to the point, what’s the owner paying for in terms of maintenance if all he has to show is a blanket comment? ‘They’re all installed and work OK mate. The invoice is in the post!’ We’ve all heard that one before.”

On this particular site, new cameras were being installed by another contractor who, praise be, took its obligations a little more seriously. “They’d asked us to train one of their installers in the use of Rotakin on site,” said Archer. “The gentleman concerned had many years’ experience installing CCTV systems and, after setting his cameras to the British Standard Rotakin method, he simply said: “I don’t really know how I ever managed before now. This is such an improvement we should all be using this kit.”

What happened at the caravan storage site?

Another client – this time one operating a caravan storage site – was concerned that their CCTV system would have to be replaced in full or perhaps in part. What was desperately needed was an independent review and audit of the system to BS EN 50132-7 before any talks opened with several CCTV installers already beating a path to the door for the contract win.

“Once on site,” explained Hays, “we drew up a full operational requirement with the client that enabled us to fully understand its requirements regarding what was expected of the CCTV system as part of the overall security strategy. We then carried out a full audit of the system.”

During the course of the audit several glaring failings became apparent. These were all discussed with the client and cost-effective solutions subsequently found that didn’t necessitate installing more camera equipment. Suffice to say the eventual client spend was considerably less than the amount originally perceived.

“As is often the case, the installer hadn’t considered our client’s legal obligations regarding the Data Protection Act 1998,” suggested Archer. “We were able to advise and put in place corrective action, without which our client would have been operating its system illegally and potentially left itself wide open to criminal prosecution.”

The message from all of this is, as ever, a pretty simple one. For the cost of a ‘phone call, end users could save themselves considerable time and expense. If you’re planning a new surveillance system or looking to upgrade a legacy installation, make sure you go about it the right way. You have nothing to lose but everything to gain.

CCTV technology today is just about the best it has ever been. It’s the management – or rather the mismanagement – of it all that’s the real problem. The police and the Courts are heartily fed up with looking at images rendered utterly useless because they’ve either been badly handled or the initial camera installation was ill-conceived.

It’s refreshing to discover that committed souls like CCTV In Focus’ Adrian Archer and Andy Hays are helping to change that appalling and wholly unacceptable status quo.

Free Download: The Video Surveillance Report 2023

Discover the latest developments in the rapidly-evolving video surveillance sector by downloading the 2023 Video Surveillance Report. Over 500 responses to our survey, which come from integrators to consultants and heads of security, inform our analysis of the latest trends including AI, the state of the video surveillance market, uptake of the cloud, and the wider economic and geopolitical events impacting the sector!

Download for FREE to discover top industry insight around the latest innovations in video surveillance systems.

Download The Video Surveillance Report