Most people will never read the security policy of an institution. Instead, they will be judging it based on much smaller details. Were you checked in appropriately as a visitor? Was a restricted area truly off limits? Did the staff appear to be sure about their processes?
Via Unsplash
That is the basis for trust. Not abstract. Based on the day-to-day operations of how institutions deal with people, space and accountability. Technology supports the architecture of trust when it converts good intentions into repeatable practice. Otherwise, it is just a slogan.
Weak Processes Make Good Institutions Look Unreliable
A number of trust issues are blamed on “culture” or “leadership”, and that is reasonable. However, there are other reasons for trust problems. Poorly run processes also contribute. If employees are using the same card to gain access to a facility, if visitors are allowed to enter the building without being logged in, or if outdated user rights remain enabled after an employee’s position has changed, then people begin to assume that the organisation is not able to maintain total control.
Because, ultimately, trust is partially procedural. People want to believe that procedures are being followed in a consistent manner rather than haphazardly. One way to address this issue is to have the same respect for physical access that we have for digital access. Secure door access control systems generate a record of who accessed a facility, when, and at what level of authorisation. This does not guarantee perfection from an organisation; however, it does provide the opportunity for that organisation to demonstrate accountability.
Good Security Provides a Sense of Confidence When it is Minimal
Poor Security is either completely hidden or entirely overwhelming. You see this in many types of facilities, such as office buildings, where visitors are not adequately vetted, or in public spaces where everyone is treated as a potential threat. Neither creates confidence in an institution.
The most effective security systems tend to be those which are both subtle and transparent. A well-organised check-in process, temporary mobile credentials for contractors, and secure doors that only allow authorised individuals to enter can all help to create a sense of order in an environment without making it feel oppressive. People do not require a performance. What they need is evidence that an organisation has given some consideration to its processes.
Transparency Creates Stronger Trust than Strictness
Organisations often confuse greater control with greater levels of trust. In fact, people generally react more favourably when they can see how a system operates. An example would be an employee understanding why particular areas within a facility may require separate access, or a customer being able to see the review logs for entries to a facility after an incident occurs. The technology becomes less arbitrary.
This is where design comes into play. Access technologies should be designed to support a clear organisational policy (i.e. provide some structure), not to cover up a disorganised one. The objective of access control is not merely to exclude individuals. Rather, it is to demonstrate that access control is implemented fairly and that responsibility is not lost simply because a door was closed.
