For those of you who have known me over the past decades, and others who have either read my articles or attended my seminars, you know that remote video is a subject matter that I profess to be essential and I promote toward greater adoption.

Since my initial involvement with remote video monitoring and services, the technologies, advantages and economics have evolved and expanded exponentially. In its inception, it was remote video clips and sometimes sequential images that allowed us as an industry to attempt a better path toward alarm verification and greater context when dispatching. Over the years and even decades this channel has evolved and the improvement and overall value proposition is finally mainstream in comparison to how these services were provided as far back as 1994. The progress has been meaningful and the value propositions continue to grow.

In previous articles I have written I have highlighted a current and growing issue that has further accelerated the need for remote video monitoring for augmentation or replacement of physical security onsite guarding. We are facing a demographic crisis because our population is aging and there is a significant decline in the number of new workers entering the workforce.

The implications for the physical security industry are quite apparent. Security guarding is a relatively low-paying job typically staffed by younger people at the start of their careers. Now, not only are there fewer, young, able-bodied people to go around, they also increasingly don’t want to be security guards, as there are often higher-paying, more comfortable alternatives that don’t involve the potential prospect of having to confront an armed robber or active shooter.

Although the industry is achieving success with the deployment of “remote guarding,” these security operation centers or central station monitoring centers are in great need of qualified staffing. Although the proper leveraging of video analytics along with a properly deployed camera network brings great efficiency to staff count in comparison to deploying staff on site, the rise in wages and challenges within the labor pool could create additional challenges.

Typically, most of the operator time and labor within a video monitoring center is expended on scrubbing and or reviewing video that is either raw or a byproduct of what was presented after the video analytics has determined that the video is “operator review worthy.” Operators spend most of their time validating the threat toward either realizing it was a false positive or escalating an event to the next level to notify first responders, dispatch human security guards or stakeholders from the property being monitored. The structure described works well for video monitoring command centers because it keeps operator agents focused on their responsibilities and brings greater efficiencies and outcomes.

Improving on a Well Managed Structure

With the widespread adoption of the scrubbing and notification processes working in tandem, some organizations have improved on this by implementing a more efficient model of scrubbing. The scrubbing and reviewing of video is structured and regimented and does not include customer facing communications.

Over the years, some organizations are leveraging quality, offshore labor for scrubbing and reviewing video. This structure is not all that new as a few started this more than 10 years ago. What we are seeing is that some agnostic, offshore companies have developed and they are supporting many North American operations.

With current technology, it doesn’t matter if agents are across the room or across the globe when they are all working within the same automation or video management system. With this great diversity — along with the availability of quality labor in a variety of offshore countries such as the Philippines, India, South Africa, etc. — why not allow your operations to get better focused while delivering a service within a more efficient economic model?

I have witnessed the success of this model for more than 10 years. Currently I see the adoption becoming more mainstream than I have in the past. It is a compelling model and third-party organizations are being introduced all over the world to support North American-based video monitoring command centers.

As I always mention, the advantage that incumbent monitoring centers already have is the infrastructure, processes and personnel in place that are easily pivoted toward video monitoring than a company that’s building such a capability from scratch.

Sometimes the pushback is trying to avoid breaking the mold of the old monitoring machine. If operators could just focus on escalated dispatches or notifications of real events, life would be so much efficient and effective.

Sending the scrubbing offshore is a great step toward that end. Any escalations require intense focus from the North American-based team, who can concentrate better since they aren't fatigued from watching video footage for long periods without resulting in a dispatch.

I really believe that most executives have recognized this opportunity and have begun to taking it much more seriously and considering adoption. They realize that waiting for a cookie-cutter fit and melding it into the old model will leave them behind. Augmenting the infrastructure they have built and modifying the labor model is what makes the most sense.

In full disclosure, I wrote a business plan on this exact model back in 2006 for a client. The beta went flawless even in a time when technology wasn’t as friendly as it is today. I am pleased to see others succeeding with this model and that the model is accelerating the growth of remote video subscribers.

As a longtime industry professional, you may be surprised that I’m promoting such a non-traditional structure. Although I don’t own or operate a monitoring center anymore, my focus has always been quality of service. I have witnessed firsthand that certain responsibilities benefit through collaboration. What I described within this article is at the top of that list.

The traditional central station monitoring companies that were willing to act first and take some arrows in the back are some that are making the best strides in this space. I believe (and I have stated this to many who understand that I don’t mean any disrespect) that most are providing remote video in a reactive manner. They are not innovating or bringing video to the forefront with all the benefits it has to offer. If they don’t progress, they will be caught in a tough position when their competitors have procured and perfected their structures and are leading the markets in a manner where it may be hard to catch up.