|
Tracking Systems
The problem of plant misuse and theft just will not go away. Attempts to bring the problem under control have included a wide range of measures but no one solution is completely effective and no one solution is the right answer for all situations.
At the heart of the problem is the difficulty of implementing the measures consistently and adopting approaches that are practical at site level.
This article focuses on two aspects:
- Misuse / unauthorised use of plant
- Theft
General background
The start point of plant security must involve all well known and sensible precautions. Many of these are commonplace and widely in use. Where possible plant should be left in secure locations making theft more difficult. Smaller items of plant should shielded by larger items that are more difficult to move. Plant should be clearly identified. Secret identification marking systems and equipment registers are valuable in establishing ownership.
It has long been recognised that many of the losses associated with construction plant and machinery can be traced to some of the people working on a site. Previous estimates have indicated that this may account for as much as 50% of losses. By its nature construction attracts a broad spectrum of people into the workforce. Some of these are known to have been involved in previous breaches of site security and plant theft yet it has been difficult to identify them and protect against their activities. It follows that prevention will fail if the same people are involved in implementing the security measures. For this reason it is vital that plant managers are able to operate security equipment on plant remotely without involving plant operators.
The best of breed systems are capable of being used without requiring operators to take any part in arming or disarming, activating or deactivating them. The principal is that if the existence of security equipment is kept secret it is more likely that dishonest operators will be caught and less likely that they will given the opportunity to interfere.
Any plant security system worthy of the name should now have the ability to:
1. raise an alarm at a 24 hour remote monitoring centre
2. immobilise the plant when armed
3. be capable of being armed and disarmed remotely and automatically without operator involvement
4. record hours of use and/or distance covered to produce scheduled maintenance warnings
5. have the ability to report certain plant system failures such as low fuel on generators
6. include tracking both by GPS and, as a backup, GSM network positioning to aid recovery
Developments in the ‘after theft vehicle recovery systems’ market for high-risk cars have lead to the introduction of a new Thatcham quality assurance standard known as Cat 5. This is intended strictly for the ATVRS market. Its introduction reflected the absence of a set of level playing field criteria for quality assessment of security tracking systems. Due to the specific characteristics of that sector Cat 5 prohibits use of some of the functions that systems are able to deliver, or requires them to be used only in a tightly defined manner. In the context of plant security and management the full range of functions needs to be used and the Thatcham Cat 5 scheme is too restrictive.
Some equipment manufacturers have not yet produced Cat 5 approved versions of tracking systems and some may choose never to do so as the investment required is considerable. From the manufacturers’ point of view commercial viability of Cat 5 systems will depend on whether insurance companies stick to their original intentions either by making it a condition of providing cover or by offering premium reductions to owners to help defray their costs.
Other manufacturers have produced Cat 5 approved versions but have also produced unrestricted versions designed to work more appropriately for plant. Thatcham Cat 5 quality approval applies only to those systems specifically designed and operated to the Cat 5 parameters and does not deal with fleet management functions nor with any functions outside those precisely specified. For manufacturers who have produced both versions it is a clue as to those who have demonstrated their ability to design and manufacture products to the highest standards.
Aside from the quality of the security equipment itself the practicality of the operation and monitoring are crucial.
Security, theft and monitoring
Experience in the construction industry shows clearly that any equipment requiring the use of a ‘key’, electronic or otherwise, to arm and disarm is likely to be highly problematic in the construction site environment. The benefits of excluding dishonest operators from the loop have already been referred to but there are plenty of other reasons why keys are not the answer:
- if immobilisation is included the loss of a key will mean that the plant is unusable until a replacement can be found.
- people can forget to arm equipment leaving the plant unsecured
- dodgy operators may choose not to arm equipment ( a ‘borrowed’ wheeled excavator can earn good money over a weekend)
Best of breed systems can be remotely controlled and armed automatically by simple scheduling and thus avoid these problems.
Some equipment suppliers will use third party secure operating centres (SOC) for theft recovery, others have their own facility. It is ideal if the supplier can offer a monitoring service since that will ensure the greatest commitment to maintenance in use and determination to recover plant if it is stolen. Good systems will also allow a user the option of running his own control centre where fleet management functions can be checked. These functions will include monitoring of service intervals, running hours and, if applicable, low fuel warnings.
Misuse
Losses associated with plant are not always directly related to theft of the equipment. Unauthorised use, whether of vans or plant, can account for considerable cost and could leave the plant owner exposed under the terms of their insurance. The cost of diesel is frequently quoted as a significant loss.
The best deterrent is to catch those involved in this kind of activity and make it known to others that they will also be caught and prosecuted if appropriate. The use of covert tracking, operated without the involvement of a driver or operator, can provide the opportunity to catch the culprit in the act.
A further common example of misuse is the failure of drivers or operators to report when a service is due. Failure to carry out regular maintenance leads to engines being ruined and similar faults. All these can be avoided by using the fleet management functions linked to preset warnings on the control centre. Regular monitoring will produce a service interval advice alerting the plant/ fleet manager to the need to call the unit in for a service. These are simple but very effective measures to reduce losses both in terms of repair costs and downtime.
12th May 2005
 Top of Page
|
0
