Blending and balancing discussions are taking up the bandwidth of considerations in the use and deployment of container security measures. At the base of all operations are two essentials: the need for a mixture and balance of different systems and types, plus the realisation that software and interpretation of data\/results is just as important as the physical equipment.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis means that while RFID is the trend of the way to go,\u201d says a consultant, \u201cit\u2019s easy to become fixated on this as the ultimate and only solution. It\u2019s not. The whole spectrum of seals and security must be considered.\u201d<\/p>\n
A new facet that the industry is suspicious of considering is e-seals. Discussion of these tends to be avoided and the only inference to be drawn from the reticence is the possibility of Big Brother becoming involved, in the form of national government dictates.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is moving from a technical, logistics concern into the political arena,” says an industry executive. \u201cThe seals are there and available (and already are being used for military and government shipments) but we want to make sure that we don\u2019t introduce them en masse and then find that governments come out with rules that make us have to change. The seals are wide-open candidates for the extension of official surveillance. Whose responsibility is it to take charge of this \u2013 no one knows yet.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n
Safety first One of the difficulties that hasarisen in implementing container security is a blurring of the need for safety versus security. The golden rule, however, is that safety trumps security.<\/p>\n Unanimous agreement on this is apparent throughout the port community. \u201cSafety is foremost,” says Matt Ramsey, vice-president for sales of Identec in the Americas. \u201cIf a system takes people away from the outside yards and its potential hazards and puts them in a building, then it\u2019s a good system.\u201d<\/p>\n Harvey Bauer, director, marketing and contracts for Tideworks Technology, agrees. \u201cIn our experience, the safety of people \u2013 terminal personnel as well as customers\/visitors of the terminal \u2013 is of paramount importance and the highest priority to terminal operators across the board. The number one concern is to ensure that everyone makes it home safely to their families and loved ones at the end of the day.<\/p>\n \u201cTo that end, minimising the number of people that are required to be physically on the terminal to effect operations is always a goal of the terminal operator and helps enhance safety. That is one of the benefits of ‘remote’ gate operations; it enables terminal operators to take gate clerks out of the lanes and places them in a much safer office environment.<\/p>\n \n Look after your own<\/strong> <\/p>\n \u201cIn our experience,\u201d says Mr Bauer, \u201coperators do not cut corners on safety. Certainly, there are times when security and operations may seem to be at odds with one another. After safety of its personnel, operators\u2019 top priorities are typically enhancing operating efficiencies and achieving profitability. In most cases, those goals go hand in hand; however, there can be a point of diminishing returns where being more productive does not necessarily add to the bottom line, particularly if significant investment is required for only a small increase in productivity.<\/p>\n \u201cThe goal of security is to reduce the risk from threats posed by unlawful acts,” says Mr Bauer. \u201cMany of these ‘threats’ may also pose a risk to safety of people as well. In order to fulfill its obligation, security sometimes needs to \u201cslow things down\u201d (e.g. checking the integrity of container seals, scanning containers with radiation monitor portals, etc.). This can on occasion negatively impact the flow of operations and therefore the operator\u2019s goal of productivity.<\/p>\n \u201cSo, now and then there is a perception of operations and security bumping heads, but the reality is they both have the ultimate goal of keeping people safe.\u201d<\/p>\n In the post-September 11 world, the spread of RFID has grown enormously and sometimes haphazardly. Vendors have mushroomed, feasting on mounds of government subsidies and cash as the fears over security at ports took hold. To the point where some ports and terminals have become so confused that they have spent needlessly on systems, trusting to luck to make sure that they have chosen properly.<\/p>\n \n Rash decisions<\/strong> <\/p>\n Inevitably, there have been several instances of terminal operators being dazzled by bright new equipment and failing to realise that the software is also important. \u201dAs a TOS provider, we see this phenomenon all too frequently,” says Mr Bauer. \u201cTechnologies such as OCR and RFID, which can do great things to automate the collection of data and tracking of assets, are terrific tools and can really aid in improving efficiencies and accuracy of data. However, depending on the scope of the deployment, these technologies can get fairly expensive. So, the ROI has to be there for the terminal operator \u2013 the investment needs to make sense for the particular operation.<\/p>\n \u201cWe see the same sort of thing when it comes to handling equipment,\u201d he says. \u201cA terminal operator may not bat an eye at spending several million dollars for a new crane, but at the same time he may have a hard time justifying a fraction of that cost for the software needed to efficiently run the entire operation. It\u2019s somewhat analogous to the mobile device craze in the consumer market. We all want the latest tablets or smart phones and are willing to shell out hundreds of dollars to get them, but we have a hard time spending more than $1.99 to download that really cool application that will make the device more powerful and our lives much easier.\u201d<\/p>\n At the same time, doing without RFID is not an option anymore. \u201cFive to 10 years ago it was seen as a luxury,\u201d says Mr Ramsey, \u201cbut now it\u2019s a standard part of operations and a part of the KPIs in many ports. Potential bottlenecks can easily be pinpointed.<\/p>\n \u201cThere was a big learning curve to begin with,\u201d he says, \u201cwith overenthusiastic implementation. Some vendors didn\u2019t last long, in many cases because they weren\u2019t robust enough in the market place.\u201d<\/p>\n He cautions terminal operators to be careful about choosing software and hardware. \u201cI reckon that 80% of the research can be done before going to the vendors. There are some poorly designed products out there.\u201d<\/p>\n OCR is very much part of the equation and cannot be seen as an either\/or solution. \u201cOriginally introduced to identify a box, it\u2019s now used also to provide a record of where a box has been,\u201d says Matt Ramsey. \u201cIt is complementary to RFID. GPS is another level of safety\/security.\u201d<\/p>\n But whatever option is chosen, ports must realise that there is no automatic cure for everything. \u201cThe biggest issue they face is planning,” says Mr Ramsey. \u201cThey must analyse what they are doing and how they should be doing it. The smartest strategy for any vendor is not to tell customers you have the panacea for all applications.\u201d<\/p>\n \n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Some ports go for overkill in deciding on container security. Martin Rushmere reports<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":8918,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[58],"tags":[],"sponsor":[],"class_list":["post-8917","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-container-cargo-handling"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8917","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8917"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8917\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8918"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8917"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8917"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8917"},{"taxonomy":"sponsor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/sponsor?post=8917"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
<\/strong><\/p>\n