Issue link: https://securitytechnologyexecutive.epubxp.com/i/431828
30 SECURITY TECHNOLOGY EXECUTIVE • November/December 2014 www.SecurityInfoWatch.com B y N a t h a n Brow n a n d To m S o rrell SECURITY INNOVATION AWARD CAMPUS PROJECT WINNER I n 2012, the University of Kentucky (UK) reviewed the state of physical security on campus and realized a disparate condition with no real standards in place. While trying to understand why and how this occurred, it became clear that two issues were a driving force in this fragmentation: different aca- demic colleges and business units had varying value of security on campus; and the security of a facility was an independent responsibility of individual colleges and business units instead of a shared responsibility between the University of Kentucky Police Department (UKPD), the Physical Plant Division (PPD), and the individual business units who reside in those facilities. UK has invested more than $4.8 million to address this problem with the goal of creating a fully integrated solution that provides a standard- ized solution across campus. Central Security System Design In order to implement an appropriate solution, UKPD contracted with the consulting firm Biagi, Chance, Cummins, London, Titzer, Inc. (BCCLT), to assess the disparate Security Management Systems (SMS) and Video Management Systems (VMS) and the existing UK information technolo- gy infrastructure to develop a request for proposal (RFP) that would best articulate the vision for a centralized UK security system. BCCLT worked with UKPD to list 73 disparate legacy campus security operating systems that were identified across campus. Only a few of the legacy systems were aware of each other, and all lacked central management. The systems were evaluated and legacy system capabilities docu- mented, with the goal being to integrate existing video and access control into the robust platform that would leverage today's Electronic Safety and Security (ESS) solutions. Though it was understood that some systems would simply be replaced, the most expansive SMS and VMS systems existed in UK's hospitals. They were license-based proprietary systems that contained more than 8,000 users. It was deter- mined that, due to the breadth of this system, the RFP must require that the solution must either expand the hospital systems onto campus, replace the existing systems with a new campus solution, or use a Physical Security Management System (PSIM) to bridge the two systems. In conducting additional research on emerging trends in SMS and VMS, it was determined that event-driven detection was a key component to enhancing safety. This would be accomplished by converging video and access control devices. The concept was to use analytics to define pos- sible alerts based on actions in the SMS or VMS and create escalating event prioritization to appropriately and effectively respond to the vast number of cameras and access control points. This was developed with both a security and facility perspective in mind. For example, gunshot detec- tion would alert police of a threat that requires an immediate emergency response, while a door prop alarm would notify a building owner of the issue to be corrected when possible. Only those people who need to be made aware of the alert would receive the notification. University of Kentucky Standardizes its Security Footprint With myriad disparate operating systems and outdated legacy technology, UK takes a step into the future with a bold plan Emergency call stations on the central campus are equipped with a VoIP emergency phone, video cameras, mass notification speakers and emergency flashing strobe.