Location, Location, Location

Managing an effective escalation of a lone worker incident clearly requires a view on where that worker is in order to send a response. Put simply, without knowing where the worker is then it is impossible for the Police to get involved. But saying that, how many of us are comfortable about our employer knowing our whereabouts all of the time!?

Any specific lone worker device needs to appeal to the worker on a number of different levels. It needs to be very simple to use, especially under duress. It needs to be there for them, always and without them having to conciously remember to carry it. And it needs to reassure them that it will do its job when required. If your workers for one minute believe that they are being tracked or located without their knowledge then I'll guarentee you...they won't use it.

With those clients we have worked with and implemented Identicom all have understood the need to empower the worker and not to undermine them by tracking their whereabouts. With Identicom, it is the worker who defines the point at which they want someone to know where they are. This point is when they feel their personal safety is being compromised.

A word on GPS. I'm often asked why we don't use GPS (satellite tracking) in Identicom. There are three main reasons but the primary one is simple. GPS doesn't work effectively indoors or in built up areas. This is because GPS relies on line of sight being achieved between the device and at least 3 satellites. Our research has shown that the majority of incidents effecting lone workers (verbal & physical abuse) occur when the worker is indoors. Therefore to rely on GPS would breed doubt with the worker which is not acceptable.

GPS may one day feature in our devices but not until this issue is better resolved and the other issues of power consumption and cost are reduced. Currently, all Identicom users feel very positively about how they use their device and what it does for them. Helping locate them in the event of an incident is part of that assurance.

For more detailed information on this subject click for the link

Alarming trends in retail

2006 has been an interesting year for Connexion2 as we have noticed an interesting trend in the retail sector in their use of panic alarms. Historically many retails have acknowledged the need to protect workers and to give them an ability to raise an alarm. Most have satisfied themselves by fitting fixed 'under the desk' buttons which can be pressed in the event of a robbery or other situation.

This year however has seen a number of retailers review their risk assessment and realise that fixing a panic alarm to one location has its limitations. A number of retailers have suffered attempts to attack or hold hostage those staff who are keyholders. Known as 'tiger kidnap' this scenario is becoming more common with a keyholding member of staff being approached typically whilst opening or closing the store. Clearly a fixed panic alarm at the point of sale is of no use to the worker in such a scenario.

Retailers are also coming under pressure from the Police about the number of false alarms from fixed panic alarms. The challenge for the Police of course is knowing whether or not an alarm is real or false when raised? Most alarms simply deliver an alarm 'signal' and therefore there is no way of identifying whether this is real or false. More importantly, if real then how severe?

Identicom addresses both of these issues and in many cases is easier and more cost effective to install than having an engineer hardwire in a fixed button.

In the run up to Christmas more and more retailers will need to recognise the increasing risks their keyholding staff are facing. If tills are full and shelves stacked with highly desirable goods then these workers need to be better protected.

For more information on retail related issues visit USDAW and read about their freedom from fear campaign

But my lone workers will use their mobile won't they?

As more and more employers start to recognise their legal obligations to protecting mobile and lone working employees many will look for ways of applying technology to the cause. It is inevitable therefore that many hundreds of thousands of lone working professionals will be asked to use a mobile phone, possibly one they already own, to raise an alert should they find themselves in trouble. In following this path, employers are failing to recognise two primary issues; in the process they are unwittingly creating new issues for themselves and their workers. The two primary issues not being addressed are:

1. Protecting lone working staff needs more than just a device. It needs a thorough look at lone working practices, on-going and dynamic risk assessment by both employer and employee and where appropriate the on-going training of those involved (workers and management).

2. A mobile phone is a communications tool; it is not necessarily an effective tool to use when faced with an aggressor or other form of danger. Arguably, by providing a worker with a mobile phone an employer increases the risks faced by the worker.

Forthcoming guidelines being considered by the Police and the security industry also suggests that any device used to raise an alert in the event of abuse or attack should be specifically designed for this purpose and not a phone with a speed-dial facility. Increasingly it is expected that the Police will only respond to credible alerts raised that are managed through recognised and approved alarm receiving centres.

What are the issues for the worker?

If risks are identified as potentially coming from those whom the worker interfaces with then consider the following:

If a worker faces an aggressive approach (verbal or physical) will they be able to get to a mobile phone all of the time? Most people will carry a mobile in a bag or in a pocket. If an attack occurs, how easy is it for that worker to access their phone. What if their bag is in a different part of the room or if the attack occurs whilst walking across a car park?

When faced with an aggressor how likely is it that a worker will be able to use a mobile phone without raising awareness of their actions? By default, using a phone is an overt action. The user may have to remove a keylock on the phone; they will certainly need to identify the correct keys to use to make a call. All of this assumes of course that the phone is switched on in the first place.

The simple fact is that a mobile is not a good tool to use in such circumstances. Furthermore, it can easily be seen that the workers are potentially increasing the risks to themselves if they try to use a mobile when faced with an aggressor. Add to that the risk of them being targeted for robbery and it is clear a better solution to the problem than simply handing out mobile phones is required.

What are the issues for the employer?

All mobile phones and their bills need to be managed and accounted for. An employer has a legal responsibility to all of its employees whether they be full-time, part-time or volunteers. The issues therefore are:

How do I manage the mobiles I give to all my workers and account for these?
How do I ensure business v private calls are identified and managed accordingly?
How do I help provide a safer working environment for my lone workers and help them against aggressors?

The final bullet point here is particularly interesting. With a mobile a worker is not likely to be able to raise an effective alert. Furthermore, it is unlikely that any evidence can be gathered from the mobile. Identicom however will enable the worker to raise a discreet alert but also allow their employer to listen to a situation, capture audio evidence and define an appropriate response/escalation all without increasing the risk to the worker.

The other, arguably larger issue facing those employers who provide mobile phones to their employees is how to manage the risks identified. If a phone can be proven as increasing the risks facing a lone worker, how does an employer account for this?

A good day out..

Yesterday was a good day out for me. One of our company's sales staff was off with it being half term so I had to pick up one of his appointments. I always enjoy talking to customers and particularly those lone workers who have yet to appreciate that their job can be made so much more productive simply by addressing the fears they have of operating alone. The visit yesterday was to a London council who's team of benefits investigators have suffered issues of verbal and physical abuse too many times. What was pleaseing was to meet a management team keen to implement technology to better provide for the safety of their workers. All too often I talk to workers who know they are at risk but they feel that their employers don't listen to them or even worst don't care.

Capturing evidence of verbal abuse is seemingly becoming more and more beneficial to employers. Historically reliant on mobile phones that are difficult to use when faced with an agressor employers are turning to products like Identicom to help. Certainly the guys I saw yesterday recognised that capturing verbal abuse not only meant they could support the worker better but that early signs of agressive behavior can be acted upon before its too late.

We will move to trialling Identicom with the council over the coming weeks...I'll report back on how they get on in due course.

What was also pleasant about yesterday is the lack of traffic problems there and back. Ah you can always tell when its half term holidays..