Security equipment implementation: Speaking the same language

This blog is about the culture surrounding Airport Implementation projects and the challenges that come with working in highly diverse teams. My name is Jo-Anne de Vos and I will share some of the insights gained during projects, specifically on the languages used in communication within and across teams, and the effect unnoticed subtle differences can have on the progress of a project.

The implementation of new security equipment requires good cooperation between all relevant stakeholders and partners. The overarching goal in the end is to implement a successful running process, which is certainly dependent on the efforts of every partner.

Zooming in on the various parties active in the Aviation Security ecosystem, there is a noticeable and logical difference in personal interest from various points of view. Every party owns an expertise and interest, which also comes with a certain way of talking – e.g. a certain type of language. For example, an engineer working at an OEM focusing on the technicalities of a lane can speak a different language and can refer to certain components using different words than a security operator working in a dynamic airport operation. An illustration of this is the yellow button: agents in operation prefer to call a button by its colour, while system engineers refer to the same button as the "M316-D button"*. Subtleties in such language can easily lead to miscommunication, with neglecting or misinterpreting a certain point of feedback as a result, which then takes on a life of its own while the original issue remains unaddressed. Recognizing these subtleties allows parties to better understand each other and eases their collaboration in working towards their overarching goals.

During operator training, we explain the technicalities of a lane in the language of the operation to create an environment where operators can feel free to ask questions and provide feedback from their perspective. Feedback from the operation is very valuable in creating a strong bridge between the technical design of a lane and the operational adoption of the system. Gaining understanding and feedback from the operation at a specific location provides the handles required to successfully merge security equipment with the culture of a unique situation.

How do you bridge the gap between the technical and operational languages?

Bottleneck modelling; an essential step towards security process optimisation.

A security checkpoint may seem, by now, as a common process for those who fly every now and then. However, thinking about the setup; there aren’t that many line processes through which we as people move, including the amount of technical components.

As a society we have become known to the high-tech screening equipment, the added or lifted restrictions and also the changing actions to take as a passenger in the checkpoint. Yet, it is always a challenge from start to finish to (re)organise for the most optimal checkpoint solution, to be able to successfully screen passengers and their unique belongings within a limited footprint at the airport.

So how to optimise in such a complex ecosystem of people, technology, cultures and anomalies? Well, we’re happy to meet 🤝. But before having a coffee or call, go through some of our thoughts below first!

---

Optimal process organisation through bottleneck analysis

Following a bottleneck-analysis approach, we believe that true motivation for process optimisation should result in an ever-present chase to full process understanding. Knowing that the ‘bottleneck’ process in the security checkpoint is subject to changes constantly, and to be able to keep track on actual optimisation potential, we believe it is beneficial to adhere to a consistent optimisation approach. Our What-If module gives airport security stakeholders the opportunity to keep looking at process optimisation scenarios.

On the right-hand side the output capacities of our CIT ‘what-if’ module are depicted. What you see is a bottleneck that shifts by altering the input parameters of the process, usually coming from a baseline performance measurement at the airport.

The calculation runs on a complete model of the airport specific checkpoint situation and includes, amongst others, parameters like:

• Process performances such as occupancy rates, process cycle- and wait times and availability of operators and machines.

• Systems and staffing configuration and number of components and space.

Please note that the above representation is a snippet of our module. Beyond capacities, the complete module enables users to focus on system utilisation rates, staff efficiencies and workload KPIs, in order to organise for the changing requirements in security checkpoints nowadays.

---

Security Process Optimisation Cycle

Security change project cycle.

The so-called what-if scenario modelling is usually the second step in our optimisation approach for airports and security companies. Based on an airport specific data collection, scenario modelling is the basis for setting paths for serious optimisation potential. It provides for a tangible asset to set up the operational business case, and then take it further and test it against operational situations in a simulated environment. The last step is to experiment and operationalise in the real-life checkpoint environment and passenger behaviour in full effect.

---

We are here to support airports and the aviation security stakeholder.

Point FWD owns a core capability in the monitoring and optimisation of airport security processes and has developed a highly effective platform for its partners to collect process data, to analyse and identify bottlenecks and to quickly initiate and monitor effective change. Now is the time to start acting.

Stay ahead of the curve - Security as a Service

A personalized experience

In our blog Security-adjacent airport process innovation we introduced how we strive to stay ahead of the curve in the aviation industry – by having interactive ‘Ahead of the Curve’ sessions at Point FWD. Recently we have been focussing on the future landscape of airport security. In this blog we share a snippet of our recent development: Security as a Service – A personalised experience.

Figure 1: Mural at Copenhagen Airport (CPH) in Denmark

---

Guests of the future

Differentiation and relevance of experiences have become key in many industries. People desire more excellence and personalized experiences. The One-size-fits-nobody approach is the common shared thought on passenger experience nowadays.

To identify the optimal differentiated passenger experience in airport security, it is key to identify the elements that contribute to this experience. We took the approach of backward engineering on identifying the optimal passenger experience and formulated the following question:

What are the desires and needs of passengers today and guests of the future?

Figure 2: A passenger of today and an airport guest of the future looking at the horizon

The Internet of Things and Open Architecture are expected to become an important direction for the landscape of airport security in the near future, as we discussed in a previous blog. Other elements that define future landscaping are:

·        Shaping a sustainable future together;

·        Digital and open wayfinding;

·        Inclusive and transparent way of working;

·        Passenger differentiation and relevance; and

·        People empowerment by building a community.

These elements have sparked our imagination and creativity, which led to a brainstorm session about passenger differentiation based on individual desires and needs. The aim was to build a need-based foundation in (re-)designing a security checkpoint to be able to provide guests’ desires of the future.

---

Passenger characteristics & behaviour at security touchpoints

An overview of passenger characteristics and behavioural traits per touchpoint in the security process resulted in passenger differentiation. The characteristics are divided over the touchpoints: queue, divest, image analysis, passenger screening, recheck and reclaim. A sneak-peak is shown in the overview below.

Figure 3: Sneak-peak of our passenger characteristics & behaviour overview

The experienced flyer is alert on action and movement when queuing, and has common baggage content such as a laptop, small beverage, phone and wallet. Infrequent flyers need more overall guidance throughout the security process and re-divestment is needed more frequently. Families carry a high variety of baggage items and content, and they desire patience to minimize their stress-level. Transfer passengers can be tired, rushed and focussed on their next flight. The security process is the first touchpoint on arrival, and they are in need of information about their next stop. Also, their prior journey could have caused a cluttered baggage content which influences the security process. Persons with reduced mobility (PRM) often bring odd-size carry-on baggage which requires more frequent and alternative alarm resolution.

---

Security Parameters and Value Added Services

At Point FWD, we believe in a data driven approach. Therefore, we identified security parameters which can be used as input in our Modelling and Simulation Tools. Divest time, occupancy rate, image complexity, operator analysis time, alarm rate and acquisition, and resolution time are examples of parameters that are implemented.

The security parameters furthermore enable the development of services that can add value to specific passenger characteristics in their journey. Examples of these Value Added Services are self-divest, large tray size, cooperative alarm resolution and extended reclaim space and time.

Because passengers differ in their desires and needs, they require different approaches on pace. Passenger differentiation could therefore require security lane-set up differentiation. Whereas the experienced traveller is most comfortable in a self-service environment, the family passenger type might need a slower pace and more interaction with operators to assist them throughout the process. Different security-lane set ups could provide an optimal passenger experience for different guests. And when everybody can proceed through the security process at their own pace, this could benefit to a more seamless passenger flow. The image below (figure 4) depicts security checkpoint set-ups defined by a passenger differentiation approach.

Figure 4: Example of security checkpoint set-ups defined by passenger differentiation.

---

What type of passenger are you?

People can be different types of passengers depending on the purpose of the journey. When going on a business trip, the experienced flyer type might fit best in this situation. However, when this same person travels with his family to a holiday destination, their needs can be different, and another profile would be a better fit. Passengers should be provided sufficient autonomy to be able to provide their own input about the experience that will fit best for them at a specific moment.  A pre-flight information app (figure 5) could help to assemble sufficient information to define the optimal fit to realize Security as a Service – A personalized experience.

Figure 5: Point FWD Pre-flight security app concept

---

We are curious: What type of passenger you consider yourself?

 Feel free to leave a comment below!

Human-machine interaction in future AvSec screening

Continuous development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is part of the road towards future baggage screening in aviation security. Explosive Detection Systems for Cabin Baggage (EDSCB) aid operation in the detection of bare explosives and continue to improve performance in terms of detection rates. AI techniques, such as machine learning and deep learning, enable the development of smart and adaptable algorithms for automatic detection of threat objects - referred to as Automatic Prohibited Item Detection System (APIDS).  These algorithms enable support in security operations by detecting threat categories by shape, such as sharp items and firearms.

In this blog we take a look at the road towards future baggage screening in airport security, specifically at the human-machine interaction between operator and algorithm.

---

Continuous improvement of EDSCB algorithms

The continuous improvement of EDSCB already evolved to a single digit false alarm rate and an improved detection rate. Improvements of EDSCB detection can be related to the detection of minor threat quantities and threat concealments. One key element missing in current algorithms is the detection of complete Improvised Explosive Devices (IED).   

When EDSCB algorithms are able to detect IED’s, this will highly impact the security operation since operators hypothetically won’t have to search for IEDs anymore. As we described earlier in our blog about Operator performance on image analysis, the search for IEDs is the most complex detection category for operators. Because the threat category list is reduced by IEDs in operating procedures, the operator learning curve could increase. In addition, less operator training and coaching could be necessary.

Reducing the threat list with IEDs can result in an enhanced focus on other threat categories and this will most likely impact the operator satisfaction and confidence. The operational impact could be an increased clear baggage flow and fewer high threat occurrences; this expects to minimize the so-called Cry-wolf effect: ignoring warnings due to the past experience of false alarms.

Figure 1 – Operators must search for prohibited items in airport security

---

Automated Prohibited Item Detection and Image On Alarm

Automated Prohibited Item Detection Systems – APIDS – are the next step towards a more secure and automated security check. These advanced algorithms are able to detect and identify threat items such as firearms, sharps and blunt weapons, based on shape.

Both EDSCB and APIDS detect threats. Yet – their detection methodologies are significantly different. EDSCB detects bare explosives primarily by material composition, whereas APIDS detects threats mostly based on shape. On Screen Resolution (OSR) of EDSCB alarms is not allowed in many countries because the human eye is incapable of material distinguishment by observation. On the contrary, operators are able to perform shape detection, which is applicable on all threat categories, except explosives (see figure 2). Therefore, a so-called Image On Alarm (IOA) is an applicable CONOP scenario for APIDS: operators should only analyse images that contain a threat detected by APIDS.

Figure 2 – Material detection on explosives versus shape detection on firearms, sharps, blunts and miscellaneous

Successful implementation of APIDS requires consideration of different CONOPs scenarios. A CONOPs scenario with IOA allows for alarm resolution by the operator and could impact the operation on several aspects. Fewer images will be presented to the primary screener which results in an additional increased clear flow of baggage. Next to this, an alternative staffing model could be considered as fewer images requires analysis by an operator: remote screening with fewer operators or combining CBS and HBS operator activities.

When images are presented with alarm annotation operators can adjust their focus to a specific region of interest instead of analysing the complete image; operator focus will increase, and analysis time will decrease. Yet, it is important to consider additional operator GUI interaction due to image clutter of alarm annotations. Changes to the Operator GUI could help to increase intuitive GUI usability.

Fewer false alarms will be sent to recheck for secondary screening. Passenger experience could increase because this results in less queue time and less intrusive procedures. This also means an increased number of correct alarms that require secondary screening. Secondary screening on correct alarms requires more processing time than secondary screening on false alarms.

---

The challenges and opportunities of Auto-clear

Combining EDSCB with APIDS is the next step towards a more automated security checkpoint in the future. When the detection threshold enables the detection of all threat categories this will allow for implementation of auto-clear software; images can be cleared automatically if no threat is detected by EDSCB and APIDS. The implementation of auto-clear will impact the operational environment on various aspects.

Implementation of auto-clear software will result in fewer rejects of images. Therefore, operators will shift their focus towards alarm resolution procedures. The initial and recurrent training program for image analysis should then be adjusted accordingly.

The staffing model will be impacted by auto-clear implementation as well. Performing less alarm resolution also enables the opportunity to combine operator tasks. For example: combining passenger screening with alarm resolution for cabin baggage, or alarm resolution with first-line equipment support.

Rotating shifts within the security team on site will change with an auto-clear CONOP. There will be less start-stop behaviour of the lane and a passengers will experience a more continuous flow.

Auto-clear software will help in the improvement process of the security culture. Operator confidence and operator satisfaction levels might increase, different career opportunities arise, passengers will experience a less intrusive security procedures atmosphere and less need for ethnic profiling might exist.

Auto-clear will also impact the operational environment physically. Security lanes could require extended reclaim space for passengers when auto-clear software is implemented.  Divest positions could be extended as well due to a more continuous flow. Also, the position for the primary screener is no longer needed in the security lane. Therefore, this space becomes available. This could allow for narrow security lane setups, improvement in equipment sustainability and a more efficient equipment utilization. However, when changing the checkpoint footprint, the potential displacement effect of bottlenecks in the passenger journey – such as border control processes – must be considered as well. Relocating the bottleneck is never the objective in the passenger journey and must be considered in alignment to auto-clear implementation.

---

In this blog post we shared our thoughts on the future of AvSec Human-Machine interaction and how this can impact several factors in airport security. Dialogues are necessary among all European security stakeholders to define AI operational requirements, perform the research and guide the innovation process to strive for state-of-the-art AvSec solutions compliant with Europe’s regulations.

We guide security equipment deployment by keeping integration as our key focus. This covers technology, process and at heart: people. Every change results in a new situation.

---

Explore what Point FWD has to offer in guiding security stakeholders toward successful equipment implementation in airport security checkpoints.

Visit our EDSCB page for more info or send an information request via the button below.

Open Architecture in Aviation Security; three operational enablers

A central topic in the Aviation Security (AvSec) industry is the concept of Open Architecture (OA). It is expected to become an important direction for the landscape of equipment development in the near future. One of the bigger steps taken is the release of a position paper last year, on the challenges, opportunities and dynamics of OA initiated by Avinor and Heathrow Airport. The initiative gained support from different government bodies (US TSA, UK DFT), aviation authorities (ACI Europe) and various prestigious airport hubs around the world (e.g Schiphol Airport, Manchester Airport Group, Dubai Airports). But what is the concern of the current architecture and systems landscape, and what can the new standard bring?

“OA can be viewed as a plug-and-play approach to airport security systems”

— John Christian Paulshus, Avinor

In this blog, together with John Christian Paulshus (Enterprise Architect at Avinor and Chair of the ACI OA Technical Standardization work stream), we explore the operational challenges that Avinor as an airport group faces and the opportunities an OA systems standard could provide to address these challenges.

---

Open Architecture – an interoperable systems approach

Currently, most AvSec equipment and screening solutions are developed rather with a focus on integration to a selection of systems, in order to co-exist in a security operation. The efforts needed to integrate system components vary across different standards used for protocols and interfacing related to data-sharing, (cyber)security and data-formatting – also referred to as the Integrated Systems approach. With OA, the software or physical architecture of a system is developed using interfaces, communication and protocols that are publicly available, well documented and free to use – referred to as an Interoperable Systems approach. Following Avinor (TSI MAG, 2021) OA can be viewed as a plug-and-play approach to airport security systems.

The most important differences between Integrated Systems and Interoperable systems, ACI 2020.

A few important generic benefits of OA are: a next level in standardization and interoperability between systems and processes, an enhancement in the detection of evolving threats and enabling for innovative third party capabilities. For Avinor – responsible for 44 Norwegian state-owned airports – OA can bring significant opportunities in various directions. Together with John, we take a look at three of those, being:

1. More efficient staff deployment;

2. Increased (cyber)security levels;

3. Increased equipment interoperability.

---

1. More efficient staff deployment

Screening capacity demand, both carry-on and hold baggage, varies during operational hours and generally additional staff is required during peak times. John explains the situation for Avinor: “We have airports in many places in Norway and our hypothesis is that we have staff performing the same functions at different locations. These people may be scheduled a bit unproductive due to a varying number of passengers, as they are being staffed for peak traffic and peak workloads.” He continues: “If an operational centre could operate several airports, or if people located at one airport could help performing work for other airports, it could save significant labour efforts.”

The complete coverage of Airports in Norway, including 5 privately owned airports. Source: Wikipedia, 2021.

An operational centre mentioned by John could in fact address several focus areas, such as maintenance, monitoring of systems and processes, but also image analysis of both cabin and hold baggage. When we specifically look at centralised image processing (CIP), operators would be able to analyse images independently from the capacity demand at one specific terminal or checkpoint, or even a complete airport. Avinor, who started a project regarding CIP, experienced challenges in the efforts needed to successfully deploy such a concept. John explains: “So far, our experience is that with more standardization in place, this would have been an easier task.”

With CIP, although networked from different locations, the challenge that can evolve is that different system configurations exist across airports. Even within one single airport there is often a “mixed-fleet” of security equipment. In relation to procurement strategy, Point FWD often sees multi-terminal airports that tend to never upgrade the whole airport to one new system. Based on the current systems approach, in order to have CIP operational for those instances combining different system setups, lots of efforts are expected to be spent on integration. In this case, OA could offer an opportunity to combine the operation of various systems in a CIP concept more effortlessly and seamlessly. Hence, more efficient staff deployment and a better balanced workload deployment becomes accessible for operating the 44 Norwegian airports.

As for maintenance opportunities, system errors could be diverted to the operational centre directly as the systems communicate seamlessly. This eliminates the need for manual and human interaction as most operators are not trained to perform such tasks. OA could furthermore enhance the implementation of condition based monitoring for AvSec technology components, enabling for a preventive maintenance program and providing accurate insights into maintenance and service cycles.

---

2. Increased (cyber)security levels

The introduction of advanced technologies in the security checkpoint, such as 3D imaging and algorithm detection capabilities, increase security levels by adding value in threat detection. One of the direct effects of these advanced technological components that strike us is the size and complexity of the data that is being produced during operation. Dealing with the new situation, Avinor advocates for a common OA standard leading to a higher standard for risk mitigation. John explains: “The threat situation is increasingly getting more complicated and the available data sets are getting larger and larger. This means that both Avinor and the vendors in the AvSec system industry need to improve on this front and protect the separate systems, as well as using and sharing data with parties outside their own systems. Historically, these systems have been hidden far away from open networks, so using and sharing data has been a challenge.”  

Security screening at the busiest Norwegian airport Oslo Airport, source: Avinor.

 Specifically looking at an increase of security detection level, by implementing OA and providing a shared approach to data-transfer, innovation in direction of threat detection can be a focus of a combined systems approach. John explains that this includes the introduction of risk-based threat assessment and advanced automated detection based on multiple sources of screening. Looking at such an interoperable system, data from multiple security and additional systems (like government databases) can be combined to perform a complete risk assessment. For example; different parts of a threat item can be divided over cabin baggage and on a person’s body. Independently these items may not form a threat, but can do so when combined.

At the moment, there are restrictions on using and storing data from security equipment due to regulatory limitations. We definitely see an opportunity in an approved standard to store and use this data, which could allow for continuous algorithm learning, even over different airports. This data can be valuable to OEMs to train and enhance their detection algorithms. OA can also be beneficial, as explained by Avinor, by use of a shared digital threat library. John explains further: “OA would allow to certify new threat libraries much faster than certifying a security system hardware and software.” In case of updated regulation, airports can update their systems faster and be compliant. The digital library itself can also be updated faster with more seamless integration as it can be done by multiple parties.

---

3. Increased equipment interoperability

One of the primary objectives of OA is the increase in interoperability between systems. This means that standard interfacing should exist between all system components, providing for a modular systems landscape. This would enable airports and security operators to combine any security equipment components out there, resulting in a so called “best-of-breed” solution to obtain highest business value.

Avinor explains that OA will bring them added value in terms of scalability of solutions: “Because the principle of OA is that new systems shall communicate and work with existing systems”. He adds: “Up until now, these systems have not talked to each other. When buying the system, we may have bought the capacity we thought we would need on a future date. With OA we can buy what we need without fearing that expansion would be difficult. The scalability feature is important for Avinor.” The COVID-19 pandemic confirmed the importance of operational flexibility to the entire aviation industry.

Security service at Norwegian airport Oslo Airport, source: Avinor.

‘Plug-and-play’ equipment allows choosing the optimal checkpoint for airports and airport operators. It is easier to experiment and set up trails of new technology before committing to a certain technology. It may enable more a seamless and cost-effective implementation of equipment, and airports are encouraged to upgrade parts of their security checkpoint in a step-by-step approach. This enables the implementation of add-on security systems, like alarm resolution equipment for shoes, which may not have been implemented otherwise due to technical complications or implementation costs. The modular aspect of OA also reinforces Point FWD’s ability to optimize airport security checkpoints even further.

A last opportunity resulting from the increased interoperability by introducing open standards is an increased accessibility to the AvSec industry for third party innovators. The AvSec industry of today may be perceived as highly challenging to enter, looking at the high standards in terms of integration between components and the utmost importance of partnerships with OEMs and Airports. We think that taking OA as a new approach for developing interoperable solutions may bridge the gap for innovators cross-industry, adding value to the experience for passengers worldwide.  

---

Ready for the change?

Point FWD is a specialist consultant in designing, planning and implementing technology change in security processes throughout the airport. Do you want to explore how to deal with OA challenges, to explore the opportunity for your development agenda or identify trial locations and projects for your technology? Get in contact soon.

---

The impact of operator satisfaction on performance levels.

There are various factors that affect the performance of security operators during the image analysis task. We discussed three of those factors in our previous blogs: Human perception, Checkpoint Environment and Legislation & CONOP. Yet, there is another important factor that cannot remain undiscussed: Operator Satisfaction.

A decent amount of research has concluded on the fact that a higher job satisfaction causes a higher motivation to do work, and therefore a higher job performance. We reached out to three AvSec field experts who shared their thoughts, being a valuable contribution in our discovery of the link between operator performance and operator satisfaction.

Brian Cilinder-Hansen
Security Process Manager

Sofie Eyckerman
Aviation Quality & Training Manager

Maykel Bloom
Security Coordinator

The most important aspects that influence operator satisfaction, according to the field experts, can be scaled under the following: work environment & equipment, training & coaching, and operator involvement & personal motivation.

---

Work environment and equipment

As mentioned in one of the previous blogs, there are various screening configurations which enable different screening environments for operators. How a certain environment impacts an operator is dependent on the operators themselves because every operator is different. Some operators might find an on-site environment distracting and can be more satisfied screening in a quieter remote location, while others work well with the checkpoint commotion as background noise. Regardless of what configuration is applied, the screening environment should not distract the operators from their responsibilities on image analysis. The field experts elaborated on this.

“With a comfortable
working environment and supportive equipment, the job should become easier which leads to a higher satisfaction and performance.”

— Maykel Bloom PMT Security Coordinator Maastricht Aachen Airport

Regarding operator satisfaction, Sofie Eyckerman (G4S) mentions, subtleties like a blinking screen or too bright lighting are all to be considered impactful. She adds: “Technical aspects are important as well. If, for example, the functionality buttons (of the image analysis user interface) don’t work properly or the image representation is not right, the screener will not be able to perform their analysis to the best of their capabilities. Which can be very frustrating.” This could cause a bottleneck that is not only frustrating for the operators, but for the airport as well given that their security performance depends on this.

Brian Cilinder-Hansen (CPH) mentions that Copenhagen Airport is currently working towards Centralized Image Processing (CIP) – also known as remote screening – which will allow for a pool of expert screeners. He explains: “It’s important to consider operator satisfaction in this process, because we should create an environment that works best for them, while at the same time ensuring that we meet all security standards. We must find the right screening environment for both CBS and HBS screeners here in CPH.”

Maastricht Aachen Airport recently upgraded their checkpoint from a single view system to dual view with EDS and re-check system. Maykel Bloom (PMT) gives some insight on the effect of providing operators with this new and upgraded equipment. They saw a significant increase in the satisfaction and performance of their operators. He explains: “With a comfortable working environment and supportive equipment, the job should become easier which leads to a higher satisfaction and performance.” Training and coaching methods allow operators to gain the knowledge and skills needed to use this equipment.

---

Training and coaching

“Sufficient training is a foundational condition for finding the confidence needed for this job.”

— Sofie Eyckerman Quality & Training Manager G4S Belgium

Before operators are allowed to perform image analysis in practice, they must be trained. As Sofie Eyckerman (G4S) says: “Sufficient training is a foundational condition for finding the confidence needed for this job”. But the definition of ‘sufficient’ can vary between operators. Maykel Bloom (PMT) gives the following example: “Recognizing items in an X-ray image can be very intuitive and logical for one person, while another person might need to physically see an item before being able to recognize it in an image. When operators discover what works for them specifically, this adds to their satisfaction.” Even though it would take some time, investing in a personalized training method could be beneficial for both the operators and the security company / airport. It could result in a more effective and time efficient learning curve.

In addition to initial training, the coaching and supporting of operators in the field is just as essential. Brian Cilinder-Hansen (CPH) says: “At the Security checkpoint in CPH on-the-job training by colleagues is an integral part of our education and daily training. Our experience shows that being trained by your peers create a safe space, where the employees trust each other and dare to ask questions. This is a great way to learn and an invaluable part of improving operator performance.” Even though operators have had sufficient training and gained the right skills for the job, knowing that someone is around to help when needed can be comforting.

For operators to feel satisfied in their job, it’s important that they’re comfortable and confident in their capabilities as a screener. Matching operators with the right training and coaching methods should increase the motivation to keep improving their performance and learning curve. This leads to the last subject, operator involvement & personal motivation.

---

Operator involvement and personal motivation

“We can all have a bad day, if we experience problems at home or a colleague at work says something that affects us mentally.
”

— Brian Cilinder-Hansen Security Process Manager Copenhagen Airport (CPH)

Humans in general have an intrinsic need to belong. Responding to this need by involving operators in optimization and development processes, could contribute to higher operator satisfaction. Yet, the complexity of the manner in which operators are involved in these processes, can be quite delicate. Sofie Eyckerman (G4S) elaborates: “It’s very easy to ask them [operators] questions and think that they now feel involved, but if you don’t show them what you do with their answers and they don’t get feedback in some way, the effect can be the exact opposite.” A balance should be found herein, for operators to be satisfied about this involvement.

The last, but certainly not least, aspect that influences operator satisfaction according to the field experts is the personal motivation of an operator. Motivation can vary from day to day, and that’s okay. “We can all have a bad day, if we experience problems at home or a colleague at work says something that affects us mentally”, Brian Cilinder-Hansen (CPH) says. That is something that cannot be managed - it’s only human. What can be managed is a fitting shift planning with sufficient breaks and an open environment where operators feel like they have someone to talk to. An open atmosphere that inspires growth: operators that are willing to grow, that embrace their responsibilities and find joy in their work; those are the operators with the best odds to find satisfaction in their job.

---

We would like to thank Brian Cilinder-Hansen, Sofie Eyckerman and Maykel Bloom again for their openness and personal insight into their vision on operator satisfaction and their valuable contribution to our discovery of the link between operator satisfaction and operator performance.

Human Factor and Screener Performance assessments at Point FWD

Explore what Point FWD has to offer in terms of Human Factor and Screener Performance assessments.