Perspective: Benefits, Challenges and Other Considerations for Integrating AR into Physical Security Programs

Many mainstream business and industrial firms have already taken up the standard of integrating AR into their operations management functions. Taking that experience into account, I want to highlight some of the benefits and challenges facing Chief Security Officers and Security Managers and add what I see as future concerns that must be considered when attempting to implement AR into any physical security program or daily operations. While some of these factors overlap, they are separated out here to highlight the specific point(s) being made.

Benefits of Integrating AR into Physical Security Programs

1.     AR can maximize customer understanding and improve overall satisfaction with security operations. Security if often viewed as a “necessary evil” and outside observers are quickly turned off by the complexities of security equipment, processes and outputs. AR can visibly display information in a manner that is easy for decision-makers and clients to understand. If a picture truly is worth a thousand words, AR data displays can explain recommendations and program specifics in a manner that helps bridge the understanding gap between security practitioners and their clients or key corporate decision-makers. This allows the security practitioner to properly set expectations, educate key internal and external stakeholders and facilitate more meaningful dialogue on security-related issues.

2.     AR can be used to decrease time to issue or incident response. This can be accomplished through improved control of personnel deployed in response to an alarm or incident, which, in turn, allows for faster assessment of real world situation at the incident site. This can also result in the more rapid assessment of alarms as being either False or Nuisance Alarms and allow decision-makers in a security command center to more rapidly and effectively dispatch security personnel to respond to an alarm or incident.

3.     Safety of responding security personnel can be enhanced through the real-time GPS tracking of personnel location, allowing remote viewers to have digitally-enhanced maps showing the location of personnel. Safety is also enhanced through reducing the amount of danger to which response personnel are exposed. This can be achieved through AR providing the ability to “see through” walls to view enclosed areas containing video surveillance equipment from outside

4.     Security practitioners can use AR to minimize security countermeasure equipment downtime by displaying faulty equipment on a system map and allowing the subject matter experts to see able connections, conduits and other interconnection devices as part of the troubleshooting process. Subject matter experts can then direct field personnel in any repair protocols or to provide more timely data on potential faults to companies with whom the security manager has developed master service agreements for maintenance activities. This reduces overall program cost, which is a benefit when it comes to budget planning discussions.

5.     Integrating AR into security procedures can reduce security team travel costs. The number of assessors needed to conduct a security audit of a site or the requirement to have a subject matter expert on-hand at a remote location whenever equipment fails can be reduced. This leads to a noticeable decrease in air or rail ticket purchases, hotel stays, rental cars, and other associated travel costs, adding a measurable return on investment that can be used to justify AR program expenditures in any business case study.

6.     Security programs that integrate AR into the program can also reap positive rewards through scaling of expertise needed at specific, remote locations. Subject Matter Experts can provide live guidance to field personnel, who are instantly connected from any location using a mobile device. Likewise, deployed subject matter experts can provide recommended security guidance, recommendations and solutions in real time to key decision-makers allowing for more complete and effective collaboration. Field personnel can be guided in performing best practices and rapidly improve their skills, allowing them to do more with less formal, in-house training needed. This allows a security company or client to more efficiently leverage resources and digitally track completed work. This also enhances the security team productivity through a reduction in downtime associated with team member training requirements.

Challenges that will Inevitably be Encountered

1.     The lack of sufficient commercially-available AR hardware is perhaps the largest challenge facing security practitioners in integrating AR into their security program. Headsets and other equipment are not generally available at a cost-effective level for security professionals. Given that most security programs within a company are woefully underfunded, or clients that want deliverables on a shoestring budget, AR prices need to drop considerably before more wide-spread acceptance and use of AR in security operations can be realized.

2.     Once hardware is acquired, the next challenge to be overcome is the development of appropriate content to be used. Without the proper content, it is difficult to get end-users to adopt the technology. Ensuring the proper content is aligned with security countermeasures, asset locations, etc. is a daunting task and, without the proper coordination insufficient or ill-conceived content is a show-stopper. However, developing proper content is a time-consuming and costly process that must be endured to ensure the successful AR integration into the security program.

3.     Education of users is another huge hurdle. Most security practitioners, let alone key decision-makers and clients, may not be sufficiently tech-savvy or have regular exposure to AR. This leaves key stakeholders virtually blind to AR’s wide-reaching applications and benefits. This can be overcome through setting proper expectations and education in the use of and value AR brings to physical security. However, this takes time and a lot of effort on the part of the security practitioner.

4.     Cost is always a return on investment driver for any profitable organization. Determining whether AR adds value to the organization can be a huge limiting factor due to the front-end costs involved. Applications can run upwards of $30,000 while hardware, user licenses and other elements can add an additional $3,000 per user to the total program cost. This challenge will eventually be overcome once the price of AR components drops to an affordable level for every day users in the physical security environment.

5.     Another challenge is that AR needs to become much more mobile. Transmission and display equipment will need to cut-the-cord and become mobile and transportable to engage a wider security audience. Most AR tech is limited by hardware requiring large numbers of power and data cords. Most AR-based service providers attempt to “cut the cord” by placing the equipment onto the user, either in the form of a backpack or some wearable technology. If the former technique is used, it often creates a heavy burden for the user and limiting battery life. If the latter, it limits the functionality of the app or device, thus reducing overall app or equipment effectiveness.

6.     AR requires faster communication speeds to realize its full potential. Users with 4G connectivity still experience clunky transmission of data using AR apps or devices. This is especially true when transmitting data from a remote location to a central viewing station, such as a security operations center. Work is underway by service providers for development of 5G technology and while advances have been made, there is still a long way to go. Thus, users will continue to experience these issues for the foreseeable future.

Future Considerations for AR Integration

1.     As the use of AR expands, so will the need to protect against cybersecurity threats so that critical security provider or client networks are protected. The use of shared equipment may allow one individual to view the program on which another security practitioner is working, this is important when one security person may not be “cleared” to view classified or sensitive information related to a coworker’s project. Security protocols assume a paramount importance should AR equipment be lost or stolen. Therefore, there is an increased requirement for enhanced cybersecurity protocols enacted that supplement the rudimentary firewalls and other “accepted” cybersecurity protection measures. Such measures can include some or all of the following: biometric tracking to authenticate the user (retina scanning, fingerprint, etc.), system time-out or screen locking after a set period of inactivity (as validated through eye tracking or other measures) or voice activated security protocols.

2.     Legal challenges due to privacy and safety issues are, in my opinion, the second most important issue that must be considered. At present, there is no clear format on how to integrate AR into security. Likewise, there are few current legal hurdles that must be overcome to enable a firm to use it. As the use of AR in security becomes more widespread, it is quite likely that legal aspects will also grow, to include regulation by governments at all levels on the content, use and distribution of AR data, how it is used, protected and stored, and other heretofore unforeseen issues. These issues will have to be worked through, often at high cost, which is a serious issue for security companies, particularly those with thin profit margins.

3.     Another potential threat is the lack of vision leading to corporate rejection, as briefly discussed in Challenge #3 (above). While the current trend is to use AR for gaming, and to a limited degree it is used as a wayfinding application for shopping purposes, there is a clear lack of vision and foresight into how AR can be integrated seamlessly and completely into security programs. Thus, lack of vision lends credence to the belief that security programs chronically strapped for cash may not ever be approved for funding by key decision-makers within the company’s finance and procurement approval chain.

4.     Poor user experience due to overhype and underperformance is a continued obstacle to the integration and use of AR in security programs. AR always has a well-advertised lead-in, but when the rubber-meets-the-road, performance is almost universally underwhelming. In a field such as security, where there is nothing clearly sexy about the nature of the work being performed, an underwhelming experience often leads to disinterest and, therefore, disuse. Thus AR would be relegated to the “great concept, but poor execution” trash bin. The key to overcome this obstacle is to properly set expectations and ensure that as AR technologies advance, user expectations must be adjusted accordingly. This requires constant diligence on the part of the security practitioner, but as rapid advances are made in technology and use, this role should become more self-evident to the user and key stakeholders.

5.     Limited equipment functionality continues to plague AR equipment and is an issue that could become more prevalent in building a case against the use of AR in security programs and operations. Issues such as field of view, ability of the computer programming to have sufficient focal length to prevent pixelization and battery life (among a multitude of other functionality-related issues) continue to limit the scope and scale of how security practitioners can use AR technology. This can be overcome through improved capabilities to miniaturize components and equipment, but not completely. Inextricably linked to equipment functionality are miniaturization-related issues that exist today that limit the availability and use of AR equipment. While the continuing trend is to reduce the size of components to allow users to “wear” their AR equipment, the demand to do so always outpaces the ability of equipment providers to create in a short period of time demanded by consumers. Currently, numerous established tech companies are engaged in a “tech arms race” to solve these problems – which have positive spillover uses for other goods those companies provide – and do so in a quick and cost-effective manner.

6.     The final, and often overlooked, threat facing AR integration into security programs is digital fatigue. The overuse of computers, smartphones and other technology devices that are all-pervasive in society today could likely lead to a predisposed mindset on the part of security practitioners and clients to “unplug” themselves from all digital equipment, including AR. This would lead to a waning interest in and a decline in the use of AR equipment. The upside of this is that AR allows the user to work with digital augmentation but remain in the real world. Overcoming this obstacle seem easy now but may be the most difficult as technology continues to take over every facet of our daily lives.

Summary

There are a number of positive and negative factors that must be thoroughly wargamed to determine whether integrating AR into a physical security program is worthwhile. Factors such as cost of integration, education of key internal and external stakeholders, and future legal aspects must be carefully weighed against the benefits AR promises before a final decision is made. Only by understanding these key concepts (and others not discussed here) and working through the issues in advance, can the potential benefits of integrating AR into a security program become a reality.