Open Up The Dialogue

May 1, 2008 12:00 PM

Q: How often are security provisions included in a building's design today?

AHRENS: Very often, especially given legislative acts such as HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) and SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley Act). Along with the recent increase in and publicity about workplace violence events, this will impact the need for security. Clearly, there is greater importance on being proactive for the potential for tomorrow's uncertainties.

Q: How does crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) play into building design and construction?

AHRENS: CPTED is truly one the best opportunities to enhance security for the interior and exterior of the site. A definite advantage to the application of CPTED is that security is designed into the development of a site and building during the planning process and is not an overlapping afterthought. This proactive approach allows security to be less obtrusive and “fortress-like,” which organizations such as the General Services Administration (GSA) are seeking by using these strategies in urban-planning orientations.

With buy-in by the GSA, government-sponsored security design guidelines are emerging for government buildings. Over time, these guidelines will be adopted by commercial organizations, and their respective proposed buildings will also benefit in the long-run.

Finally, specifiers need to think about competing requirements, which will negate the effectiveness of security. As many know, the number-one deterrent to criminal behavior is lighting. LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) is an energy conservation goal that many commercial and governmental projects are trying to achieve, and in some instances, could limit the effectiveness of security. However, through communication and proper planning, lighting can be implemented while meeting requirements of security and LEED with negligible costs.

Q: How is technology change affecting the considerations for system integration within a building?

AHRENS: Technology is clearly advancing. However, “bleeding” edge technology and proven security technology are still far apart. In general, there are several ways to help specifiers implement successful projects. Specifiers should not involve technology that is bleeding edge and un-tested. In some instances, reliance on “bleeding” edge technologies can actually minimize the functionality and expandability of security systems in the future.

And just because a vendor says it will work, does not mean it will work. Do your homework before specifying security equipment. Specifiers need to carefully identify the features desired by their client and identify multiple manufacturers/vendors that will meet the client's requirements.

Specifiers that make assumptions on technology capabilities could negatively affect their representative project. Not all manufacturers will offer the same type of features or technology.

And it's important to avoid letting relationships affect decisions to specify equipment. Choose manufacturers and vendors based on their proven ability to meet the functional requirements of the project.

Q: What about the economics of designing security into a building?

AHRENS: The costs associated with post-construction security design, in my opinion, far exceed the costs of security when security is properly planned for during a traditional design process. Let's just look at airports. A majority of airports were originally designed to be open public environments and, therefore, less secure. As we have seen, these environments have increasingly become more secure. The original architectural planning of airports impacted the ability to implement technological and physical security controls. In lieu of these architectural controls, the most expensive control - manpower - must be used in conjunction with technology to off-set the security inefficiencies of the architecture.

In any building, obviously without planning considerations from a security perspective, we can make assumptions that architectural facets as they relate to the implementation of security will be weak. This will result in the implementation of multiple technological controls at additional expense. These controls will be less expensive than massive architectural modifications, but will still be more expensive than if security philosophies were proactively anticipated during the design of the building.

Q: What are some general best practices in communication between contractors/specifiers and security professionals?

AHRENS: Specifiers sometimes look at contractors as adversaries and vice versa. I have experienced projects in which contractors clearly under-bid jobs and were constantly trying to advocate additional monies and change orders in every design meeting. By establishing back-channel communication, we were able to come to an understanding regarding the project and move in a direction that was less aggressive. The goal of the project should always be to partner for the development of a secure facility. We should work with contractors to solve problems before they become questions to the owner. We should approach every meeting as partners and avoid becoming adversarial. An owner does not want problems with a trade that represents, in some instances, 1 percent of the total cost of the project.

Emphasizing teamwork and communication early on - and as often as possible during the construction phase of the project - will greatly assist in realizing the goal of both the contractor and specifier, which is to be proactive about tomorrow's uncertainties, while impressing their common client and securing additional work.

---

SEAN AHRENS, CPP, CSC, is a project manager for Schirmer Engineering and has more than 17 years of experience in the security industry, 12 of which have been as a practicing consultant. He can be reached at (847) 953-7761 or sean_ahrens@schirmereng.com.

Want to use this article? Click here for options!
© 2012 Penton Media Inc.

This month in Access Control

• Targeting The Customer
• Electronic Pedigrees
• One Hero Among Many
• Who? What? When? Where? Why?
• More from September's issue