Tailgating is one of the most serious threats to a PACS and yet one of the most pervasive. So why do we tolerate it? It would be like with a surveillance system people routinely temporarily cover the camera; would we be just as complacent? With the rise of building automation systems (BAS) an accurate automated occupancy counter is vital for safety and evacuation, but not possible with undetected tailgating events. My guess is the event distribution looks like a large number of low risk events and a small number of high risk events. So what's the cost? Federal fines are rare, and enforcement must be difficult, so that tangible cost may be low. But what about the serious tailgating threats of industrial espionage, terrorism, dangerous former employee...? These are more difficult to apply an actuarial cost to. But must be central to how a PACS is justified in the first place.
IPVMU Certified | 07/11/14 04:06am
'Worker segregation' has a nasty ring to it, but it is a real operational concept. It means you keep people where they belong, and you keep them out of places they don't.
It might have dramatic value, like keeping untrained or ill-equipped people out of hazardous areas, or it might simply mean you break up the group of workers who like to talk more than produce when they get together.
I have seen access control used to address both cases. In one case where access control was used to 'enhance productivity', it was part of a bigger effort to improve numbers in one area at a local manufacturer. There was one department, connected by one door to a break area, that continually missed their mark. Management finally asked to expand access control to that door so they could monitor who passed through it. Productivity did improve after the door was controlled. Orwellian, maybe, but people don't talk to each other through a shut door.
So it's not 'tailgating' per se, but there could be monetary value to keeping people on the right side of the door, not just damage avoidance.
Man traps and guards at the door are very expensive anti-tailgating solutions. But they offer one key advantage; a response that detains the offender. The balance of solutions focus on detection and annunciation, but stop short of detention. Do you think the solutions that only detect and alarm can be effective at curtailing tailgating?
In hard numbers....$15,000.00 if you tailgate or allow a tailgate at one airport I know of. It cost a life in Los Angeles when a former employee tailgated to enter his former work and shot his wife who had been cheating on him along with her boyfriend.
It's the easiest way into a building that has access control and requires no technology.
In reality it threatens the entire value of the system. We are raised to hold doors for people as a gesture of politeness. We have seen the person before and don't want to challenge them.
The measures to prevent it currently fall more into CPTED than electronics, although the EU has some cool stuff for automated border crossing using 3D cameras and such.
The integrators are hesitant at best to bring it up because of the significant cost. Then you have to figure out just how important each door is. Some locations just post people to prevent it.
Physical man traps, barrier bars, rotating gates....whatever....take up space, hinder timely entrance and cost more money. In the end it's more cost effective and easier to pretend it doesn't happen here.
IPVMU Certified | 07/14/14 07:41pm
Tailgating is difficult and expensive to solve using technology only. Another choice is using technology in conjunction with policies, procedures and training: to discourage tailgating. Airports have been doing this for decades with reasonable success. Most employees don’t understand or appreciate the danger they create, when they fall back on, what their mother’s taught them about courtesy. A couple of suggestions:
Management must preach the anti-tailgating message, in employee forums, employee messaging, policy manuals, videos, and the employee handbook.
Review the video – periodically review the video of key doors and look for tailgating violations, then obtain the names from a PACS report, and then reprimand the violators.
Use anti-tailgating technology such as turnstiles, tailgate detection, and door prop alarms.
As technologists we tend to solve problems with technology; when many times managing human behavior needs to be part of our design.