0808 280 8098 | 0121 630 2115 info@training4employment.co.uk

We’re sure we’re not the first to tell you this – everything is going digital. It’s seems all around us, everyday processes are becoming completely automated. When we go shopping, go on holiday, or go out on the town, you are likely to encounter a machine more than once.

So you would think that physical security, by means of security guards, doormen, and other individuals tasked with protection, are on the way out. Well, simply put, they aren’t.

There are quite a few reasons why physical security still matters. In fact, in most circumstances, an individual or team of personnel are preferable to a fully automated system, despite what security tech companies will tell you. Here are just some of the reasons why having a “man on the ground” is still critical.

Cheaper

The argument for technology replacing some jobs is that it works out cheaper in the long run. Instead of paying someone £20,000 a year, companies will elect to spend £50,000 on a security system that replaces them all together, safe in the knowledge that it will pay for itself over time. But as with everything, these systems require upkeep. Replacement parts, upgrading software, and general wear and tear upkeep takes a toll. And in most cases, another person is required somewhere along the chain to maintain and monitor the system anyway.

Therefore, for a good portion of security jobs, a balance is preferable. If you have a state-of-the-art system that breaks down, you are in a lot more trouble than if your security guard is ill. Conversely, if you have a security guard with no tech backing him up, you are running unnecessary risk. But a smart, efficient security system that backs up by a security guard will mean you are spending massive amounts of money on a super advanced system without sacrificing overall security.

Security Guard

More personable

Approaching a building with nothing but a cold, unmanned entry security system can be very off putting. Despite it’s ever increasing integration into our lives, there is still an air of distrust towards technology. What if it doesn’t work? What if I’m using it incorrectly? Should these situations happen, they are often embarrassing or worrying.

But having a human being there can put a lot of minds to rest. Unlike a machine, that will draw a big attention to you if you have the incorrect entry requirements, for example, a security guard can exercise some subtlety. It’s also much more pleasant to be greeted with a smile and a “Good morning” than it is to be greeted by a green light that means you are OK to enter.

More intimidating

On the flip side of the above point, a physical security presence can be more intimidating. Obviously, physical barricades will shoulder most of the “intimidation” burden, but if fences, spikes, razor wire and the like are fronted by a simple computer interface, people may not feel as threatened. The same can not be said if a security guard is patrolling it.

People might see a doorway protected by some kind of device, and feel safe enough to approach it if there are no apparent consequences for doing so. they aren’t likely to get past the system, but they can tamper with it. But if a security guard is presence, they are unlikely to be so bold.

Door Supervisor

“Reading a situation”

This is the key reason why computers will never truly replace front-line people in the security sector. A security system can do many, many things. They can scan IDs, check for credentials, perform background checks, and identify the person through retinal scans, fingerprint scans, and so on. But they can’t analyse one of the most important distinctions a security system need to make – they can’t “read a situation”.

For example, if a doorman sees a person approaching their business, and the person in question is clearly angry, they can be stopped. A security system, providing the person has the correct criteria to enter the building, can’t make that call. Similarly, security guards are trained to spot trouble brewing, pouncing on it and deflating the situation before anything gets out of hand. Simply put, a computer’s inability to read these x-factors means human-fronted security will always be necessary.