Page 36 - the SyI Quarterly

Our Corporate Partners
Surprisingly, their answers were pretty much split down the middle. Some examples of why respondents say
they’ve opted for centralised access control are:
“We have global standards and requirements that are connected to both legal and group insurance demands. We
also see an economy of scale in negotiating globally and time saving than doing it in 75 sales markets, which is
neither efficient nor cost effective.”
“One global team has the responsibility to operate and manage the ACS for the entire organisation. This way we
ensure that only trained and authorised personnel have access to the system to minimise operational mistakes
that would affect the organisation. Working with critical infrastructure we are subject to strict compliance demands
when it comes to ACS to our building and sites.”
“The centralisation is more efficient (less costs) and more effective (better risk mitigation).”
Why decentralised?
So, with all the benefits of centralisation, why do so many organisations still have decentralised access control
systems? Sometimes, it arises organically – after a merger, for example, when existing access control systems
remain in place. Or it can happen when an organisation has locations in different countries, each with their own
security managers and budgets. As one respondent to our research explains: “Access control was always in place
in the different countries but managed locally and also sourced locally so many different solutions [were] doing
the same thing.”
Sometimes, decentralisation happens simply because the scale and complexity of unifying access control
internationally can feel overwhelming without the right system and support to achieve it. This may also be why
some organisations end up with a hybrid of both centralised and decentralised access control. One respondent
said they have: “A hybrid mix, due to mergers and acquisitions and legacy organisations we have many fragmented
site-based systems.”
Another said their access control systems are: “Mostly centralised, but in a way decentralised. Access control
policy, manuals, instructions, and guidelines are provided top-down and become more detailed as it reaches the
individual. Document responsibility follows management out in the line organisation to ensure best knowledge is
forming instructions and guidelines. Financially, we have found that company common procurement generates
lowest prices and strict contract governance and follow-up ensures extra costs are controlled. Responsibility for
purchase, maintenance, and service is assigned to management in respective business.”
How the future lies
This all begs the question: whatever their current situation, are organisations ultimately aiming for a truly
centralised access control system? According to the security and facility managers we polled, the answer to this
question is just as split:
More than half are aiming for centralisation
55% of respondents are working towards a centralised global access control system as their ultimate goal.
And many see great value in doing so, with the reasons they gave including increased security and the
ability to set global security standards. Cost saving was also mentioned as a driving factor. And several
respondents appreciate the ease of management that centralisation brings, stating motivations such as
easier standardisation, remote configuration, better oversight and governance, uniform administration and
improved data control.
As one respondent said: “There would be a number of advantages of moving centralised access control.
We’d have cost savings through better control of maintenance and administration plus using leverage as a
large company to get better prices. Not to mention, we’d see improved security through better governance
on implemented standards and the possibility of setting up operations centres.”
Some can’t see a way past decentralisation
Despite there being so many clear benefits to a centralised system, 45% of the companies asked either
don’t plan to centralise (31%) or it feels an irrelevant option for them (14%). So why is this? Interestingly,
given that cost saving is a motivation for many companies, some respondents thought that having one
centralised system would be too costly. While others were pragmatic about the realities of creating such a
wholesale change in their organisation:
Some respondents said:
“Never possible within our organization, every country has their own budget and responsibility for access
control. There is no global security first line operation.”
“Legally, a centralised access control system would be too challenging.”
“Centralised access control will be tough because we have a lot of leased properties with different set-ups.”
“We have a very complex work environment that cannot be met globally by a centralised system.”
Support for a unified approach
Undoubtedly, international centralisation can create challenges when you’re working with different cultures
and legal systems and so on. But we’ve seen that the long-term benefits far outweigh any initial stumbling
blocks, and there is lots of support available to help with unifying and standardising access control
internationally.
Summary
What the report is showing is that despite many peoples assumptions that large multi nationals will all at
some point centralise their security, the reality is quite different.
The report also goes on to explore many other key topics such as future proofing and automation, what
does the future of access control look like and what security leaders are hoping for.
The full report can be found at www.nedapsecurity.com/physical-access-control-benchmark- report
37