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.

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.