United States-based companies may experience significant challenges when they look to secure their operations in other countries. These include the obvious, such as different languages and cultural barriers, and also numerous other issues that can make designing a global security plan a potential nightmare.
In Japan, for example, where lifelong jobs with the same company can engender loyalty and a sense of family, employees may feel as though they are not being trusted when an American company installs an access control system inside the corporate structure.
Video surveillance systems are commonplace in and around most U.S. workplaces. But in Germany, courts have ruled that the cameras interfere with employee rights and put workers under undue pressure. Italian employers, on the other hand, can use cameras to monitor employees only with the permission of unions.
In Europe, there tends to more of a desire to have security systems that place a higher priority on protecting people than protecting property; therefore, there are fewer sprinkler systems in Europe than in the United States. But a European facility is likely to have a more comprehensive fire detection system.
Labor costs are lower in South America, making it less expensive to hire guards than in the United States. Conversely, the costs of maintaining an electronic security system are higher, so it is likely that more guards and less technology are protecting South American facilities.
With just those few thoughts in mind, where does a corporate security officer or director turn when it is necessary to protect company employees and property on another continent?
The Global Security Approach
Realistically, there are two ways to approach global security. A corporation may choose to treat each foreign facility as a stand-alone location. It will monitor its own access control and video surveillance systems and provide reports to corporate headquarters. The local office can work directly with a system integrator in the area to design and install the security system and then provide training and maintenance.
But since most multi-national companies already have a global IT network, it may make more sense to bring all security data from around the world into one central command center — usually located in or near the U.S. corporate headquarters.
There are a number of reasons that a single global system makes sense, but two of the more important are: The same consistent high level of security and safety an IT network-based system can bring to each corporate office; and the corporate synergy created by joining security and IT. The addition of security to the network has helped justify increased expenditures on IT. And some of the costs of a new security system may be able to come from the IT department.
“I think it is always best to have the information coming back to corporate headquarters, but it all depends upon how the company has come together — for instance, if two large companies have merged to create a multi-national entity, it might make sense to maintain two command centers, at least at first,” says Steve Morefield, president of system integrator Firstline Security Systems of Anaheim, Calif.
Flexibility is Key
When moving forward with a global system, most of the U.S.-based system integrators interviewed agreed that it would be ideal to start with a standardized plan based on what has been proven to work in the United States; but the vagaries of international laws, customs, labor and equipment availability make the need for flexibility a must.
“U.S. companies sometimes tend to put their standards on a system and then try to push that out to the rest of the world,” says Jim Coleman, president of Operational Security Systems (OSS), based in Atlanta. “It is hard enough to put standards out companywide when you are just working in the United States. When you get into different cultures with different standards, it can be problematic. You need to be able to transform from culture to culture — you have to do it country-by-country.”
When it comes to country-by-country installation, an end-user can ask his or her U.S. system integrator to provide personnel to oversee the projects. The integrator can be asked to help find — and then work with — a counterpart in the foreign country; or the end-user may decide to handle that task alone.
The U.S.-based integrators interviewed seemed to largely favor the second choice, claiming the first to be too expensive and the latter offering far too little protection for the end-user.
Brad Wilson, president of San Jose, Calif.-based RFI Communications and Security Systems, says his company typically turns to local integrators to handle an overseas job, but RFI retains the responsibility for making sure the system is installed correctly and meets its customers’ needs. “We have been doing the implementation from a program management perspective completely, but we don’t send our people out of the country,” Wilson says. “That is excessively expensive.”
John Krumme, president of Cam-Dex Security Corp., of Kansas City, Kan., says he realizes his firm is highly dependent on the performance of the foreign subcontractor, but that his employees do all they can to ensure a good performance. “The thing we are going to do is ensure the engineering side of the project with a level of detail that will allow us to reduce all potential problems to the best of our ability,” he says.
Firstline’s Morefield largely agreed that a tightly planned project is more likely to result in a successful conclusion thousands of miles from the end-user’s corporate headquarters. “We produce CAD drawings that are very specific to the project,” he says. “We don’t just throw the football and hope the other integrator catches it. We are pretty proactive in making sure they have all the information so they can meet our standards. And so far, they have been. Putting as much information into their hands as possible beforehand is really critical.”
Having that local integrator on the job site is important in that he or she is going to be familiar with the language, building codes and other issues that may affect the completion of a successful security project. Even the way in which business is done can vary dramatically from country to country. For example, European construction costs in general — and integrated security system costs in particular — may seem high by U.S. standards, but reflect an industry expectation for the contractor to absorb normal and reasonable contingencies rather than squabble over a litany of change orders and back charges.
Morefield says that foreign integrators also frequently demand 50 percent payment before beginning a job. “That seems to be pretty normal in Europe and Asia,” he says. “We are able to go back to our end-user and give them the same deal. And where they would fight that tooth and nail here, they accept it overseas. They realize things are different outside of the United States.”
The Manufacturer’s Role
There are a number of other issues that can affect the installation of a foreign security system. For example, according to Wilson, there are no national building or electric codes in India, one of the fastest-growing countries for corporate expansions. That brings an extra challenge to each project as the end-user and the system integrator may be left to the changing whims of local inspectors.
Other, more technical issues also come into play. In the United States, electronic security equipment operates on 120 volts. Most of Europe operates on 240 volts and some Asian countries use 50 volts as their standard. Video transmission in North America and some Asian countries are based on standards set by the National Television Systems Committee (NTSC). Western Europe and Australia transmit video using Phase Alternating Line (PAL) standards. A third standard, Sequential Color with Memory (SECAM), is predominant in France and Eastern Europe. The three standards are not compatible without a converter.
All of this brings us to the role security equipment manufacturers can play in setting up an overseas security system. Not all manufacturers make all the various combinations of products, nor do they provide service to all countries. It is not impossible to work around, but it may mean having to look at a provider that neither the end-user nor the integrator have previously worked with.
“We had a problem with an access control system that was going into a country at 50hz power and 127 volts, rather than 120 volts at 60hz,” Morefield says. “The manufacturer we were using was from the United Kingdom, where they use 50hz power. We had a hard time getting the transformers we needed because it wasn’t something they stocked or put on the price list in the U.S. They made them — they just weren’t available in our country.”
Other end-users may opt to select equipment based on the manufacturer’s ability to provide service in a particular foreign country, Wilson adds. “It may be a great product, but in certain theaters, say Russia, the manufacturer may not provide support,” he says. “We may have to go to another manufacturer because it has a better presence in the country where our end user is working.”
Tying it Together
Robert McMenimon, president of Canton, Mass.-based MAC Systems, says that most end-users looking to set up a security system for the first time in a foreign country appreciate having one point of contact for the job.
“Your integrator can help locate the best security pros in another country, assist in negotiating a price, provide the detailed drawings necessary, make sure that milestones are being met and run interference with the manufacturers,” he says. “With teamwork and careful planning, this can all work out well.”
Tom Asp is president and chief executive officer of VTI Security, a member of SecurityNet – an international network of 22 top independently owned security system integrators. He joined VTI in 1986 and works in the corporate headquarters located in Burnsville Minn. VTI has operations in Minnesota, Colorado, South Dakota and Wisconsin.
