euralarm - glen dale on security industry perspective on certification of security systems crisp

CRISP Final Conference – 16 March 2017 6th CoU Meeting, Brussels

An Industry perspectiveGlen Dale

General Director / Euralarm


Euralarm Positioning

We represent the electronic fire safety and security industry.

We provide leadership and expertise for industry, market, policy makers and standards bodies.

We support the idea of a Single European Market in our sector.

We are the only trade association in our sector with an active office in Brussels.


3 associations in 1

Fire Section

Security Section

Services Section


A Strong network

http://www.tecnifuego-aespi.org/index2.php

http://www.securiton.com/de/ch/home.html











Based on the 2015 figures published by the EU Commission:• Through our industry members

and associations, we represent > 5000 companies in a €67 billion market

– 48% systems– 32% services– 20% products

• Those companies have nearly 700 000 employees

• An 11% market growth is expected over the next 5 years

Serving a big community


Our Strategic Goals

A Market-driven standards system that works for consumers and the

industry

• Euralarm’s voice is heard by CEN, CENELEC and the EU Commission

• Direct cooperation with CCMC

A Single market approach to testing auditing and certification

in the fire safety and security industry

• Euralarm expects a positive legislative proposal on Security Products from the EU Commission (DG Home) in 2016

1

2


Improving fire safety in tourist accommodation to prevent

unnecessary deaths and injuries

• Oct. 29, 2015: Resolution of the EU-Parliament asking the EU Commission to release legislation to improve Fire Safety in hotels.

A Europe-wide system to recognise skills and

qualifications of personnel working in the industry

• Euralarm members are very active in providing training

• Improve coordination with national authorities

3

4

Our Strategic Goals


CRISP

CRISP

Observations from an Industry perspective


CRISP The Positives:

The STEFi model addresses, in an innovative way, some of the “softer” aspects of an installed system.

To date standards and certificates have addressed the technical performance of products and systems – but not from an installed and operated system approach and how it may impact the employees and the public at large.

The STEFi model addresses also the cost aspect with respect to integration and future possible upgrades as well as training requirements

STEFi reviews under Freedom infringement, how the system ensures that personal data and images are kept secure and doesn’t infringe on personal privacy rights


CRISP Issues that need addressed in a next phase: Appointed Experts Selected and appointed by the evaluation body

Security – Technical (forensic - scientific) Trust – staff, consumers, consumer associations Efficiency – economic background, relevant technical knowledge Freedom infringement – human rights, data protection lawyers....

How to build up this database of willing experts? Experts in their field – will they be experts in STEFi evaluation - or will

there be different STEFi experts for every installation? They are unlikely to provide services for free – and are likely to be

expensive Is a pan-European result required or a national approach?


CRISP Issues that need addressed in a next phase: Pan-European calibration

Test labs often perform “round robin testing” of a “gold model” to ensure calibrated and uniform results

How might this be addressed with installed systems

Some aspects of what is acceptable from a video observance point of view is down to national culture. Does this imply that although STEFi is generic, testing and certification is national

The Industry (Security components) has been advocating with the EU Commission (DG HOME) the need for pan-European certification. It is hoped that a legislative proposal is released soon!

The Industry would not easily accept a move to another complex national system certificate


CRISP

Issues that need addressed in a next phase: Freedom infringement

Aspects of data protection are addressed in the new EU General Data Protection Regulation 2018.

This is a legal requirement – can this not be self-certified by the user/integrator

“The primary objectives of the GDPR are to give citizens back the control of their personal data and to simplify the regulatory environment for international business by unifying the regulation within the EU.” (1)

(1) Wikipedia


CRISP Issues that need addressed in a next phase: Business model

From a manufacturers perspective we have many product standards ensuring product quality – especially in the areas of Fire Safety and Security.

Some countries also require testing of a configured system – albeit technical performance testing

The question is who is the driver who wants to submit the integrated / installed system for STEFI testing?

The user or integrator? - costs may be significant

There needs to be a clear business model or driver for STEFi to be successful


Thank you

CRISP

euralarm - glen dale on security industry perspective on certification of security systems crisp

Science