The “compliant bureaucratic” screener makes pumping decisions

By Prof. Alan (Avi) Kirschenbaum*

The most recent case of misplaced security enthusiasm at airport security occurred recently when the breast pump of a nursing mother was labeled a potential threat to air security.

Actually this decision, like many others which are made, fits into a pattern of behavior of security employees that the BEMOSA research project discovered in its search to understand how security decisions are made.

From what we have found, there seems to be clusters of employees who have very similar security decision “profiles” that will predict the degree to which they will comply with the rules and protocols issued by the official agencies involved in airport security.

Fall into the hands of the “compliant bureaucratic” screener and you will have your breast pump removed. But if you encounter an “adaptive employee,” the chances are that she/he will let you through with a smile!

The fact that we are able to distinguish (profile) among employees by the degree they will adhere to or bend the rules has extraordinary consequences for airport management, and especially the level of security required at airports.

For a start, it can be utilized in recruitment of new employees. Do you want to catch the breast pump passenger or be more flexible? Are you aiming to make passengers more “security amiable” or instill fear into them? Do certain areas of airport security require greater rule compliance than others? All these issues are related to the security profile of the employee.

So, with all the arguments about profiling passengers being addressed, it is clear that it also makes a lot of sense to do so when dealing with security employees.

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

Client Expectations Versus Airport Security Rules

By Prof. Alan (Avi) Kirschenbaum*

Recent statements about making airport security more “passenger friendly” seem to have hit a snag.

As I have pointed out in the past, one of the key components for making airports more secure and friendly is to have the courage to make the conceptual switch from thinking of airports as production facilities to regarding them as service providers. One consequence would be to view passengers not as a mass of units flowing through the airport but as clients who are purchasing goods and want to be satisfied.

What then do we make of three women in their eighties bitterly complaining to the TSA about being taken aside and being asked to prove their innocence as a potential threat to airline security? Security screeners insisted that one remove a back brace for screening, another had her colostomy bag inspected and the third had to verify an insulin pump in her leg.

With each of these “incidents” there comes into play what social scientists call the “Halo Effect,” where hundreds of waiting passengers see the incidents or hear about them and sympathize with these elderly women. This halo is magnified and can grow like a rolling snow ball.

Talk about the negative impact related to the airport’s (or TSA) image and expectations of “friendly service”! But it is much deeper than just image; it reflects the blind obedience to rules and regulations that disregard the wealth of cultural and social diversity that are characteristic of passengers.

The empirical evidence that has accumulated in both our and other case studies repeatedly shows that when security employees are given discretion regarding when to apply rules and when to ignore them, they are empowered and more committed to the security of passengers. This means better security. It also means making judgment calls that will keep passengers satisfied and not indignant.

But the good news is that the culprits (the screening employees) in the incidents cited above will receive refresher training on “how to respectfully and safely screen passengers with disabilities or medical conditions.”

Of course, the question one must ask is: what about the rest of us?

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

BEMOSA to hold workshop on human factor in airport security

If you ever wanted a better understanding of the reality of security decision-making behaviors and the impact technology and social networks have on airport security, then a special workshop taking place in Brussels this month could be the place for you.

Organized by the BEMOSA (Behaviour Modelling for Security in Airports) consortium, the workshop to be held in the offices of DG Research of the European Commission on Rue du Champs de Mars 21, on March 19.

It will showcase intermediate findings of the most cutting-edge research undertaken to develop new behavior models and enhance airport security.

Aimed specifically at airport security professionals, management officials, human resources and operations, providers of airport security services and technology, providers of airport security training services, public officials and policy makers, the forum will shine a spotlight on the reality of security decision-making behaviors, with a special emphasis on the impact of technology and social networks on security compliance.

The event will also reveal some unique behavior models developed by BEMOSA, which will eventually form the basis of a new training program for airport personnel.

The workshop is the first in a series of events to be organized by BEMOSA in 2012. All events aim to grasp a better understanding of the human factor and the principles of social networking as applied to airport security and to enhance security decisions made by airport employees.

Privatizing Security Police

By Prof. Alan (Avi) Kirschenbaum*

Policy makers should know better than to use single examples to argue for or against a particular policy. For every positive example there can always be found a negative example – the “ABC” of basic introductory research methods! So why all the fuss over a CNN story about security employees making a mistake: one that admittedly takes down the airport for a few hours? There is obviously something brewing that has led to the outburst of why the the US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) should let go and allow more autonomy to local airports to hire their own security employees.

But what are the facts? From an organizational point of view, we are seeing competition over resources and control primarily generated by an organization’s need for survival and growth. The TSA, if it allows airports autonomy over their security, will simply become a funnel for budgets directly into the hands of local airport security managers. They may still determine safety and security standards but the consequence will be a radical downsizing and loss of political power.

On the other hand, the airports will be free to hire and train security employees according to their own views of how security should be implemented. Autonomy in this case brings with it greater control over the security environment and less dependence on external constraints.

Sounds good, but there is a BIG catch! It is probably irrelevant who does the hiring and training as the “proof of the pudding is in the eating,” and the BEMOSA project has shown that the key to enhanced security has to do with the employees. Utilizing the same training and procurement systems for technology will not eradicate the facts of life in airport security. There will continue to be social behavior that supports up to a third of the employees bending the rules and protocols; there is even a greater proportion that mistrusts the technology or the overwhelming decisions made on the basis of group think and not individuals.

So, all the fuss about control over airport security is really a smokescreen for the more generic problems that are embedded in our airport security systems. Does it really matter who gets the budgets, or who can hire or fire? What is needed is an evidence-based evaluation of airport security that focuses on the security decision-making process and then comes to terms with the results!

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

Individual initiatives outplay security instruments

Large percentage of security and other personnel in airports do not wholly trust their security instruments and, to some extent, rely on their gut feelings when it comes to inspecting passengers, according to a presentation given by Dr. Coen van Gulijk from the BEMOSA (Behaviour Modelling for Security in Airports) project at the European Organization of Security (EOS) meeting on January 16.

Dr. van Gulijk, who teaches at the Delft University of Technology, presented BEMOSA's findings showing that often security personnel use their own initiatives to double-check bags or items, even when the instruments they are using do not raise the standard alarms.

From the interviews and surveys conducted with security personnel, BEMOSA researchers also noted that group consultations usually form the basis of security decisions in airports, over individuals determining alone what course of action to take.

Dr. van Gulijk, said that observing the actual behavior of security workers in airports indicates that on a daily basis, many non-routine security events take place that trigger non-routine security behavior. This means that often ad-hoc decision-making ends up solving various security problems.

The study presented at EOS also shed light on the information network used by security personnel while at work. Findings show that the interaction between colleagues in different departments is essential, with workers turning to many different colleagues with their questions. In addition, security personnel often rely on regular passengers as reliable sources for security information about fellow-passengers.