Costa Concordia: Trusting Technology or Human Error

By Prof. Alan (Avi) Kirschenbaum*

“State of art ship hits a reef close to shore. 4,000 passengers evacuated safely. Human error the likely cause.” Sound familiar? Now replace “ship” with aircraft or train and what we see is a pattern where the interaction of technology and humans sometimes doesn’t work out. This is especially acute when transportation safety and security decisions are abdicated to technology to be the final arbiter.

Source: Costa Cruises  

One of the factors contributing to the tragedy of the Costa Concordia, which ran aground last week off the Italian coast, is that in recent years large cruise ships are more dependent on sophisticated technology. So, for instance, news agency Reuters concluded that “computerized systems are taking over much of the safety burden and crews are dependent on what the equipment tells them.”

This does not mean that technology should be forsaken; but the degree of trust that decision makers place in technology will have a direct impact if “recommendations” or outputs are complied with. Those who did not place much trust that technology can detect or stop a threat were more likely to bend or even ignore the rules to fit the situation. So, in a sense, “human error” can be blamed in large part on trusting technology as the final authority in cases where security and safety are concerned.

In the case of the Carnival Corp.'s Costa Concordia cruise ship, state-of-the-art safety technology was in place. We will only know later on if “human error” can be identified as the culprit in the disaster. But if past findings are any indication, the reasons are far more complex and lie in both the methods that crews are trained in and the organizational directives that reinforce the use of technology to generate mindless decisions.

*The writer is the initiator and coordinator of BEMOSA (Behavioral Modeling of Security in Airports).

Why passengers and security personal don’t trust technology?

By Prof. Alan (Avi) Kirschenbaum*

While the debate goes on about how far technology can go to make airports more secure, there has been a growing recognition it is nearing its limits.

This recognition has come partially from the backlash of passengers who feel they are being abused and from the bottom line costs to the aviation industry.

Airport passengers check-in

Passenger backlash, for example, is evident in the latest NPR-Thomson Reuters Health Poll about passenger health fears concerning airports and flying. Not surprisingly, passengers are more fearful of the security procedures in airports than flying! Nearly one quarter (23%) said they would refuse to be examined in one of the whole-body scanners now situated in many airports. A third of people under 35 said they would decline the scans.

The interesting quirk about health has more to do with trust than actual fact. Security personnel operating these machines do not need any “radiation” tags as its impact is minuscule.

Incredibly, the same phenomenon among passengers also appears among the very security employees who screen us. The BEMOSA Project has shown that a similar percentage of security employees don’t trust the very technology they use.

If we put this together with the fact that most also report that the vast majority of security incidents are false alarms, we are entering into a situation where the whole concept of airport security may be undergoing a radical change.

What these few pieces of information suggest is that airports can no longer be considered mass production factories where both the employees and passengers are seen as cogs in an intricate but totally controlled industrial process. The “cogs” apparently have a mind of their own! And, as the data point out, there is a point where control simply will not work.

Perhaps it is time to rethink past concepts of how security fits into an airport framework.

One alternative that makes a lot of sense is to view the airport as a service organization. Its goals are the provision of services to its clients – passengers – and in doing so will require security arrangements to mold themselves into the actual patterns of behavior of employees and passengers. This is a dynamic process but it is doable!

*The writer is the initiator and coordinator of BEMOSA (Behavioral Modeling of Security in Airports).

Passenger complaints drop, but is satisfaction rising?

By Prof. Alan (Avi) Kirschenbaum*

The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) recently announced that traveler complaints against it were near an all-time low. A recent report indicated that complaints about the TSA dropped in September to 1,418, the lowest since record-keeping began seven years ago.

So, if complaints are down, passenger satisfaction must be up? WOW! The TSA strategy must be paying off. Yet, anyone who has taken a basic course in statistics recognizes that this is an unpardonable and misplaced interpretation of the recent decline in complaints from passengers.

Source: TSA site

A dozen alternative explanations could account for the supposed decline which have nothing to do with customer satisfaction! Would the decline hold up if based on fluctuations in passenger rates each month (rather than raw numbers) or have passengers simply adapted to the “hassle” and/or fear of retribution by being put on a “list” for enhanced security if they officially complain? How many passengers feel “Why bother complaining when probably nothing will change?”

Not complaining for the official record does not mean that all is well! But it is a start!

With the realization that airports are a “customer-service business,” a major hurdle in the security “mind-set” of policy makers is taking place. It is probably for this reason that “out of the blue” customer complaints are making headlines. This is a good sign, but it is important to recognize that misusing statistics does not bode well in efforts to revamp prior notions of airport security. It will only increase distrust of authorities and lead to utilizing other forms of mass transportation when it is available. Both are death knells for the aviation industry.

*The writer is the initiator and coordinator of BEMOSA (Behavioral Modeling of Security in Airports).

TSA makes the right security decisions for wrong reasons

By Prof. Alan (Avi) Kirschenbaum*

What we are witnessing at the US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) these days is typical of all organizations that, for survival purposes, are adapting their goals to the exigencies of external pressures.

Source: TSA

In this case, the TSA has given in to a combination of passenger backlash and potential loss of income for the airline industry. Part of this adaptive process still hinges on viewing airports as assembly lines where passengers are cogs in the manufacturing process.

It is therefore not surprising that some marginal changes are being instituted in security rules and regulations with the purpose of speeding up the flow of “units” by reducing “friction” at check points. And, for the first time, the concept of allowing TSA agents to have discretion in making decisions appears to have been taken on board.

This is a leap forward in thinking that should be praised as it recognizes the reality of security decision making revealed by the BEMOSA project which has shown the prevalence of bending, and even breaking, the rules throughout the airport security system by security agents.

What is promising here is that the TSA is finally beginning to recognize that passengers are not homogeneous cogs flowing through a factory, but represent different population segments. Yes, deal with children and family units differently than single adults; yes, pre-profile passengers by age and background; yes, remove the reactive security measures when judged unnecessary.

All this can be done by allowing greater discretion on the part of security employees to make decisions. It is these activities that will make airports friendlier to passengers and not lower security.

The key to enhanced security still and always will, remain in the hands of airport employees and not machines.

* The writer is the initiator and coordinator of BEMOSA (Behavioral Modeling of Security in Airports). The full article has been published in Homeland Security Today.

Man not machinery more decisive in airport security

Prof. Alan Kirschenbaum, initiator and coordinator of the BEMOSA (Behavior Modeling for Security in Airports) Project has reinforced his criticism of the (ITA) International Airport Transport Association’s “Checkpoint of the Future” program in a recent interview with Stephanie Johnson from the Denver International Travel Examiner.

Checkpoint of the Future, which aims to enhance security while reducing queues and intrusive searches at airports by using intelligence-driven risk-based measures, fails to consider the unique make-up of the individual passengers or those individuals working the technology, said Kirschenbaum.

“BEMOSA has discovered a practically unlimited number of potential scenarios in its simulation modeling based on the reality of behaviors we observed,” said Kirschenbaum in the interview. “This means that future training will need to promote proactive and innovative behaviors rather than rote reactions.”

“In addition, all airports are NOT the same due to physical, demographic and cultural characteristics thereby making it essential that each training program fit the social-cultural context of the potential passengers and employees. Not an easy task but doable,” he said.

In the interview Kirschenbaum pointed out that most security technology in today’s airports were born as a “reactive solution to what has happened.”

“It's a "cops and robbers" scenario,” he said. “From our research, it has become clear that the "human factor" will prove to be more decisive than technology in airport security.”

The reason for this, added Kirschenbaum, is because even technology requires human intervention and interpretation.

“It is here that the wide range of human nature, background, past behaviors and characteristics will play a key role in the decisions made,” he said. “Technology will be part of the background but not at the forefront of the security decisions.”

According to Kirschenbaum, airports should not be viewed as mass production facilities but “complex social service organizations where employees (and not machines) make key security decisions.”

BEMOSA's program, which focuses more on the security interaction between employees and passengers, will therefore provide better security and customer service than one based solely on technology, finished Kirschenbaum.

Read the full interview