Security guards are prey to sleepiness, laziness, threats and bribes. So why is construction so slow to take up CCTV?
It’s easy to see why closed-circuit television will have a tough time in construction. There’s a substantial up-front outlay to get a system up and running, the images are largely unusable in court, and at the end of the project, nobody wants to be lumbered with the gear.

But the manned security industry has big problems. The European Working Time Directive and the minimum wage are pushing up the cost of guards, while the service delivered leaves a lot to be desired. Like anybody else, security guards are prey to sleepiness, laziness, threats and bribes. In fact, let’s face it, they’re more prey than anybody else because the pay is low, the work is dull and the hours are unsociable.

The construction companies that do embrace CCTV praise it. Take Beva Construction of Rochdale. Beva has been using remote monitoring for four years, to startling financial effect. Beva used to spend £2400 a month on manned security. Now it pays one person, who sits in the Rochdale head office to keep an eye on all of its construction sites.

A recent incident highlights how the system works. Two men broke through a fence at a Beva site in Manchester and started manoeuvring a generator into position to be towed away. The movement activated a camera, mounted on a 6m pole. With the thieves in his sights back in Rochdale, the operative activated a recorded verbal warning, something to the effect of “Leave the site, you’re under surveillance”. They did, but came back later for another go. The operative sounded the stern warning voice of god again and called the police. The thieves left.

Beva had a headstart when it came to the technology. Its parent company is Beva Investments, which owns 120 commercial properties. Beva Investments spearheaded the use of CCTV and so it was a straightforward transfer of expertise for Beva Construction. They also share resources. One security guard in Rochdale remotely monitors both construction sites and commercial properties.

The best argument for CCTV is financial, and anecdotal evidence indicates that such systems deliver savings.

Ian Thomas, now security manager for Kier Construction, became a CCTV convert while working on a rural site of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. After problems he cut guard numbers by nearly a quarter and installed CCTV cameras and automatic gates. “The savings were quite enormous,” he says. “We recovered the system cost, about £25,000, in four or five months.”

It also stopped intimidation at one gate, which workers were using (in spite of a contractual obligation not to) because it cut several miles off their journey home.

“The system just proved so much more efficient,” he said. “Cameras don’t fall asleep and they can’t be intimidated,” Thomas said.

Cost comparisions

Based on a site operating over three years and having three entrances. Manned guarding: One guard at each entrance 24 hours a day, seven days a week, recording people and materials on and off site. Cost: £210,000 per year, £630,000 over three years, no annual increase included. Man and machine: assuming automated gates, two-way audio, CCTV and remote surveillance back to one, main security position on site. The out-of-hours manning level would be reduced to one officer per shift. The officer would be able to see and control all three entrances from one position. If he has to leave his post, control of the access points could be transferred to the security company’s control room. Cost of electronics: approximately £50,000 The maths: cutting the guarding hours brings the annual cost down to £120,000. The three-year cost including equipment purchase, maintenance, remote surveillance and manned guarding would be in the region of £430,000. Estimated savings: £200,000 (the hardware can be removed and re-installed at a new site) Source: Install CCTV

Source

Construction Manager