Undercover

Global Surveillance System Policies: Eyes on the World

The need to standardize our surveillance systems seemed obviousuntil we had to sell the idea globally

By Anonymous

January 01, 2007 — CSO —

I remember fondly my first surveillance system. A small, relatively inexpensive VHS-based system for one retail location, it consisted of a few pan-tilt-zoom and stationary cameras. As the store's loss prevention manager, I was responsible for ensuring the quality of the images by adjusting the recording levels, cleaning the recorders and maintaining new tapes for the VCRs. All in all, the system worked well, and it helped us reduce employee-related losses and shoplifting.

Twenty years later, I'm the CSO of a global retailer whose business model requires intense surveillance, and things are considerably more complicated. When I was hired, the surveillance system desperately needed to be modernized. There were too many different systems from too many vendors, and the quality went from bad to worse. Image quality was rarely good enough to support a finding. Coverage was simplistic, providing more opportunity than deterrence. And the systems required too much local support to keep tapes fresh and libraries current. The company needed a strategic, long-term approach to move away from VHS-type systems.

How hard could that be? Harder than I'd thought. As it turns out, decisions about surveillance systems need a lot more companywide involvement, communication, business acumen and cultural sensitivity than I ever imagined back when I was working on those early cameras.

Time for Standards

My group and I got started by creating a standard for video surveillance based on both performance and operational drivers within our U.S. business environment. We decided that the systems needed to be digitally based with hard-drive storage so that all cameras recorded continuously. Recording would have a minimum image-per-second frame rate and video resolution. In addition, the systems needed to be network-friendly, to allow for remote access to live and recorded video, remote serviceability and remote monitoring for equipment failure or other alarm conditions. Finally, the systems had to require little to no local intervention.

We did a full analysis of systems and providers and identified the most cost-efficient system with the best capabilities and long-term flexibility. We chose one provider for our surveillance product and one integrator who would be responsible for installation into our physical security network.

We presented the new platform to the company's U.S. senior managers, making a case that costs would be offset by reduced maintenance, service and training costs, as well as improved performance, speed and quality of the new digital system. Senior management determined that it was a solid strategic investment for the company.

• Email
• Print
• Comments
• Digg This
• SlashDot