Simulations in security checkpoints: Three Use Cases

Every security checkpoint is under constant pressure of changing situations. These can be triggered by a change in spacing due to construction plans, as well as policy changes looking at new procedures for screening passengers, or potentially an upgrade in screening technologies. Point FWD sees the security checkpoint as a coherent system of technologies, processes and people in which balance is the key to success at every unique location. Our challenge in this puzzle is to transition from a rather uncertain situation – i.e. getting surprised by external changes that impact checkpoint operations – to a situation where airports, airport operators and suppliers are in good shape for any upcoming change.

In this blog we like to give a short introduction about 3D simulations in security checkpoints by which digital representations of security operations can act as a “Sand-Box” to experiment with planned, or even unplanned changes. We believe that for a majority of changes to the security checkpoint, costly trial projects and time efforts could be reduced by building a digital model of the operational situation, but only when there is a sufficient level of operational detail.

Specifically we take a look at three main application areas in where simulations show great benefits, being:

1. Checkpoint redesign and technology upgrades;

2. Checkpoint resilience testing; and

3. Security process optimisation.

---

1. Checkpoint redesign and technology upgrades

A first area of application in which simulations can provide great benefit - and certainly all aviation professionals are most familiar with – is in design and planning projects. For example terminal expansion programs or security checkpoint redesign projects, which are often combined with technology upgrades such as ATRS, CT scanners or Security Scanners. However, most design simulations delivered for projects like mentioned mainly focus on generic passenger flows, which are modelled based on rather generic dynamics about security checkpoints. This is done by looking at acceptable security input and output values providing a good sense of passenger flows and queue areas.

Point FWD’s view in these projects is that for gaining the most accurate representation of a future checkpoint situation, more detail such as process anomalies, operational variations and airport specifics are required to understand different design scenarios for security checkpoints. Discrete event simulations can provide a visual representation of the detailed process and can provide further insight on how and where passengers precisely accumulate in the process itself and how a design could be altered to potentially resolve this. It also provides a dynamic component to the process by showing how lane and checkpoint throughputs are constantly varying over time and during peak hours. Below a simulation example based on the transition from x-ray to CT scanners and the impact thereof on process performance is included.

Design use case: Moving from standard X-ray to CT scanners. This video shows an example of the level of detail by which CT implementations can be tested, validated and successfully prepared by means of accurate simulations.

---

2. Checkpoint resilience testing

As of recent years, more and more airports adopt digital strategies to manage challenges that relate to operational stability. These include platforms for accurately forecasting actual passenger demand, based on real-time flight schedules and passenger data, increasingly with use of AI engines to detect anomalies. For the purpose of flexibly, both up- and down-scaling resources and assets during operational hours - especially capacity intensive terminal processes such as check-in, baggage reclaim and security - can benefit.

In case of the security checkpoint situation, on a different level than these real-time monitoring and planning systems, resilience levels can be tested, validated and improved greatly by a simulated environment. By doing so, exploring what-if scenarios in terms of common and uncommon events that happen in the checkpoint environment is possible, such as security lane errors or high threat procedures. Virtual representations of security lanes can then help in testing stress levels of checkpoint environments with regards to the number of lanes available for operation at maximum, versus passenger demand and key performance metrics. Eventually, a simulation of potential disruptions help in preparing for future threats to operation, and help to implement robust operational plans.  

Resilience use case: Outage of a security lane during peak times. This video exemplifies an operational situation that focuses on testing and validating operational plans for checkpoint situations, really looking at the impact on capacity and passenger flow.

---

3. Security process optimisation

Ideally, security checkpoints should accommodate for an environment to securely and swiftly process significant numbers of actual passengers. Often, the operation is not running  optimally and it is key to determine what is causing problems in the checkpoint so that these problems can be understood and solved.

Optimisation issues that can be assessed and fixed with simulations include, among other things, large queues with high queue times, low throughput, or the occurrence of bottlenecks. To recreate this operational situation in a digital twin environment, it is essential to have accurate and reliable input. This specific process data, such as processing times, reject rates and X-ray analysis times, are obtained both by extracting machine data, as well as manually collected measurements. Using this as input for the simulation, the process can be imitated and issues like mentioned can be tracked down. In doing so, experiments can be run which are testing different solution possibilities, such as changes in CONOPS or resources, delivering a better understanding of how this would effect, and potentially optimize the process, before ultimately implementing these changes in real-life operation.

Optimisation use case. In this video an example focused on the impact of the tray per passenger rate is simulated. It may help to simulate the operational impact of policy adjustments and CONOP changes in optimisation projects.

---

The importance of accurate input parameters

Simulation can be an excellent tool to create a virtual model of a security checkpoint. This environment can be manipulated and changed to either visualize the impact of certain changes or to see where bottlenecks are likely to occur. However, to create a digital twin of a specific security checkpoint, it is essential that the input parameters of the checkpoint represent the actuals. If the input is not correct, the output including the solutions to the initial issue, may not have the desired effect.

Point FWD’s Checkpoint Insight Tool

Data that is often required for complete simulations include screening system outputs, arrival patterns of passenger flows, but also more specific passenger data that often differentiates across airports. The latter is much often hard to capture with machine efforts, and therefore needs manual capturing. Point FWD’s Checkpoint Insight Tool is a tooling platform to help airport operators and OEMs to do just that.

---

Checkpoint Simulations by Point FWD

Has this blog made you curious or are you already contemplating about running a simulation for your business? At Point FWD, we are happy to help and answer in case specific questions about simulations in security checkpoints arise. We are open for demo requests and like to think with you in the solutions that can be brought with our security checkpoint simulation capability.

Process implementation of APIDs into security checkpoints.

While most airports are currently on the verge of transitioning towards modern screening equipment such as Explosives Detection Systems for Cabin Baggage (EDS CB), Automated lanes and Security Scanners; Airport Managers will soon be presented with value adding components to further streamline security operations. As touched upon in previous blogs, APIDS acts as an important solution to orchestrate the security operation in terms of human resources, operating costs and eventually to influence waiting times for security in a positive manner. In fact, implementation of APIDS might even brighten up the business case for moving towards EDS CB equipped security operations in parallel.

As operational APIDS trials are currently being prepared and performed, legislative outlines start to become visible to the industry and the first ECAC approval standards are expected early 2023, APIDS now take place on the near-term roadmap for implementation. But how do you start planning for APIDS implementation? Point FWD assists airports and security companies in security change projects and in this blog share their thoughts on the most important steps to take for APIDS consideration.

1.       Understand the impact and formulate a strategy

When looking at APIDS – and any other type of technology change in the checkpoint environment basically – it is of utmost and primary importance to fully understand every characteristic and capability of the technology, most importantly to assess the impact on current security operations. For APIDS specifically, it is expected that full system capability in combination with EDS CB screening could go in direction of HBS-like automation levels. In that perspective, changing towards EDS systems for the checkpoint become even more beneficial for the airport, and studying what solution (C-1, C-2 or C-3) best fits the airport requirements is then essential. For those involved in security change projects, it goes without saying; checkpoint (re)design requires a great amount of efforts to achieve a balanced and successful new process.

The success of APIDS implementation goes hand in hand with the introduction of Open Architecture of systems in Aviation Security screening setups. APIDS solutions will also be developed by highly competent companies other than screening equipment OEMs and for this reason flexibility and interoperability between systems is key to enable new-entrant companies develop smart solutions that interoperate within the security landscape. Hence, when tendering for solutions as such, it is very important to look at it from the broader checkpoint operation with regards to data exchange, interoperability, CONOPs, checkpoint layouts and other operational implications.

2.       Create functional and operational designs of the new checkpoint process

A holistic view is key when upgrading or re-designing the security checkpoint with any technology or security measure. It is certainly not a matter of replacing a machine or adding an algorithm. Moreover, it is about rebalancing all processes to accommodate for the technology implementation(s) as initiated, and obviously this is no different for APIDS implementation. The expectation (and promise) of APIDS is that less screeners per lane are required to screen the same number of images, but with the requirement that centralized image analysis – or networked screening – is in place to be able to gain the potential.

The optimal security lane and checkpoint design is unique for every airport and can even vary across the airport for the different checkpoints. For this reason, using process characteristics from the local situation is essential when developing for a future lane concept. Together with assumptions for future operation of APIDS systems and CONOPs, functional lane designs can be modelled and simulated to assess the impact on output figures such as passenger and tray throughput, (decreased) staffing of personnel and expected workloads. Doing so, various functional design scenarios can act as input for operational business case assessments, resulting in confidence and accuracy in strategic decision-making.

3.       Validate APIDS setups and start optimization

Trialing a new combination of systems and CONOPs in a real airport environment will always be the best step towards solution validation. That is, we can model and calculate the best we can, however, the true value (and pitfalls) of APIDS systems should be concluded in a real-life operational environment with all uncertainties present. It should always be the step in between initial design and final roll-out of a solution. Furthermore, in the trial setup, end-users are confronted with APIDS and will get trained or become known how to adapt to the new way of working. The insights that were gained during an APIDS trial should of course serve as input for simulations of final checkpoint design, lane concept development or even tender specification.

One of the main focus points to trial APIDS solutions in the AvSec checkpoints is to closely monitor every part of the coherent security process. Data capture and analysis helps to critically assess whether, where in the process and to what extend changes have occurred. Monitoring of APIDS technology trials can best be done using omni-source data collection – including machine, manual or sensor data. The reason for doing this is to be able to tackle any differentiation in process performance that might be present, including bottleneck shifting, decreased alarm resolution times or increased IPP due to seasonal change.            

4.       Start implementation and continuous monitoring of APIDS solutions.

The start of deployment of APIDS systems should be seen as the start of various other projects. Fully dependent on the CONOPs in which APIDS will be implemented, it is expected that new waves of technology will get certified and that other process CONOPs become available to the early airports adopting the primary APIDS technology. Therefore, continuous monitoring the operation remains key to be able to optimize for the most beneficial process including staffing and work instructions.

Furthermore, benefits of algorithm-based systems such as APIDS are expected to continue to grow, even outside of the checkpoint space and across airports. Via the Open Architecture of systems, airports with algorithms deployed should be able to work together by autonomously adapting to emerging threats, and mitigating security risks even further in the future.

---

Point FWD owns a core capability in planning for security checkpoint change related to technology upgrades, process improvements and terminal redesign or expansion projects. Point FWD assists with expert operational knowledge, fully supported with a comprehensive security process analysis and design platform. Contact the team for more info.

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.

Quick fix solutions and long term developments to resolve current challenges in Airport processes.

Recent spring holiday peaks have acted as unsuccessful load tests for the current state of both the airport infrastructure, as well as staffing at the various key airport processes such as check-in, security and ground handling. The forced lay off of personnel (and knowledge) during crisis time has left most airport companies and service providers with urgent and critical challenges, dealing with a sudden increase in capacity demands without having the sufficient number of staff available.

For the mid- and long-term, reshaping and monitoring human employment as part of the airport service seems to be inevitable. However, getting sufficient staff levels back is a though challenge and is not going to be solved in the short-term. That is, attraction, recruitment and training of airport personnel currently takes too much time to be of immediate help, and as a result, with current equipment setups and CONOPs, capacity gaps remain present. This is where operational balance should be regained.

---

Solutions to regain balance in the screening process.

So what other approaches, tools and solutions exist to minimize the capacity gap we face at airports today? We like to group potential solutions on a scale of time and therewith share the industry opinion that in the end, passenger screening checkpoints should gain in resilience. We therewith firmly believe that technology will enable us to replace human tasks in the near future.

Here is a list of solutions on the short-, mid- and long-term that will help airport managers and security checkpoint stakeholders in their current jobs.

1.       Short term: Process Optimisation as a quick fix and efficiency enabler

For the very short term, we know that still a lot of potential is present in current processes and operations at a major part of airports and security companies. This includes CONOPs alterations, process improvements, gaining awareness and active training and coaching of newly hired security personnel. After all, it takes time and experience to perform at your best.

• Start getting an accurate and thorough overview on security checkpoint operations to spot improvement potential for overall process efficiency. Start an act of regaining balance in every situation of operation, during, but also outside of peak hours.

• Manual process data collection is an effective and accessible way towards the identification of passenger bottlenecks and determination of lost workloads in the checkpoint. Point FWD’s Checkpoint Insight Tool is a low-cost and easy tool focused at the collection of critical passenger flow data. Getting a frequent status quo of the process ensures to maintain control over critical KPIs that, on most airports, are not (yet) logged by machines or sensors. When combined with machine data, it really provides the actionable insight when to start steering.

• Get your basics right. Whereas the situation in checkpoints has changed globally, so have the people. This especially applies to newly hired staff. Implementation (and discovery) of best practices may be of great help in order to get personnel on a steep learning curve towards a smooth and sustainable operation.

Point FWD’s Checkpoint Efficiency Assessment pin points efficiency gains in the process. Contact the team for more information.

2.       Mid-term: Process alterations and robust monitoring and forecasting.

Looking beyond the upcoming summer and winter peaks, security managers and staff managers should equip themselves with tools to effectively manage passenger flows and real-time capacities, without the excessive staff numbers of today. In the end, automation plays a big role in gaining stability, forecasting and control, and the facilitation of real-time steering of operations in security checkpoints. Some specific directions for solutions include:

• Keep a maintained focus on sustainable workloads and performance goals for security staff. Obtain stable methodologies for process alterations and baseline performance measures for the security process in detail, but also looking at work-loads of specific tasks, such as screening, recheck and divest. Are there CONOPs changes possible in specific windows of operation? Collect data, draw the hypotheses and start testing process changes

• Solutions for real-time monitoring of passenger flows and asset utilisation become increasingly more important looking at the stability of processes and operational excellent, real-time, process organisation. Specific vendors, such as Point FWD partner GRASP Innovations, also help to increase predictability of future peaks. Airports should now more than ever bring in the power of technology and automation to replace repetitive tasks – such as access control.

• Commence trial projects towards Automatic Prohibited Item Detection systems, to start studying practical process designs that can provide huge efficiency gains together with EDS algorithms. This might just be a game changer in Avsec screening in terms of operational excellence, but might also require a redesign of the security process as a whole. Advice here is to effectively prepare, design, test and monitor during a trial with adequate methods and tooling.

3.       Long-term: Technology enablement and security checkpoint rethinking

We are on the verge of a technology revolution in aviation security screening. That is, discussions around the Open Architecture of systems gain in power and OEMs start to work more and more on strategies around the co-development of Avsec screening components. The introduction of Artificial Intelligence in detection capability and alarm resolution technology pave the way for a rethinking of the security checkpoints of today. Integrating more advanced technology in the checkpoint maybe a driving force to require other types of personnel as operator at the lane – primarily including technicians, hosts and secondary judgement.

---

We are here to support airport and security personnel.

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.

Contact us

Contact team

Checkpoint Improvement Review

Difficult times ask for a solution-centered approach.

Point FWD introduces a short-term consultancy agreement to enable quick identification of operational improvements in security checkpoints.

Read along to find out if this might be something for your airport security checkpoint.

Don’t forget to apply!

Request project

Review project submission

---

The offer

To retrieve a quick review of security checkpoint operations leading to a concrete set of outputs, such as process improvement and direct OPEX reductions. Point FWD is capable of delivering a tangible output against a lead time of approx. 1 month for a fixed price fee.

This offer is subjected to limited availability. Our advise: respond quickly.

What may it entail?

The services provided as part of our AvSec check-up may cover various topics of interest, including, but not limited to:

• Process / CONOP review and improvement review

• Checkpoint baseline performance and KPI assessment

• Checkpoint capacity modelling

• Business case for change implementation

• Operator training program review

*All output directions will be substantiated with a cost/benefit analysis, with a focus on potential OPEX reductions or process KPI improvement, such as efficiency level or process capacity.

What do we need?

A few components are needed as starting point for the short-term consultancy agreement, that may include, depending on the focus:

• Specific and output-driven operational challenge.

• Situational drawings of the checkpoint situation.

• Configuration of screening equipment.

• Work instructions and SOPs.

• Staff planning and operational schedules.

• Available checkpoint performance data*

*Point FWD’s in-house data handling tools such as the Checkpoint Insight Tool may be used to gain the relevant checkpoint process data.

What is the investment?

The intention for the short term consultancy agreement is to offer maximum value for a fairly small investment.  Investment can vary per assignment, but the idea is to never exceed EUR 5.000,-. This ceiling amount enables us to keep it straight forward and deliver quick identification of concrete operational improvement points with direct OPEX saving opportunities.

Practical setup

• A mutual non-disclosure will be initiated, including the common goals, before getting started for the short term assignment.

• This is a non-binding agreement that ends after delivery of the engagement.

• To keep it a short term project, we require one dedicated point of contact to be available for the time of the project.

---

Request your project

Ready to apply for you a quick identification of optimization opportunities for your checkpoint situation?

Request your review via below form and we’ll come back to you ASAP.

Request review project

Checkpoint Review

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.