SCREENER RECRUITMENT: CONSIDERATIONS AND CHALLENGES
We are continually being told of the need to invest in human factors and that it is the people who make the difference. However, in an industry that traditionally pays low wages, how do we ensure that we are recruiting the right people? There are potential employees who are more than capable of becoming excellent screeners; people who are highly motivated and enthused by working in the airport environment. What are the recruitment challenges for screeners and how do these differ between contract screening companies and government/federal entities? What are the security considerations for HR departments when trying to draft job specifications for security screeners? Are there examples of best practice that others could benefit from? Adam Brownson provides some answers.
T
he challenge of providing a well-resourced, efficient, and high performing airport security checkpoint has probably never been greater, against a background of the continual threat of terrorism, increasing pressure on costs, legislative changes particularly concerning Liquid Explosive Detection Systems (LEDS), and uncertain numbers of passengers demanding high standards of customer service. On the one hand, the problem is a numbers issue, matching supply (i.e. security officers and equipment) against demand (i.e. passengers). The tools available to help predict demand profiles at the check-in desk and security checkpoint are continually improving. Similarly, queue measurement tools, for example using facial recognition or Bluetooth, can be used not just to measure queue times against Service Level Agreements but also to help respond quickly to real time queue information and open additional checkpoints as necessary. Nevertheless, the task of deploying the right number of security staff when they are required, and designing rosters to maximise efficiency, is not to be underestimated. On the other hand, the greater challenge is that of ensuring that
18
the security staff at the screening checkpoint are competent and effective as individuals and as team members. While the fundamental objective of preventing unlawful acts of terrorism against civil remains unchanged, security officers are expected to perform an ever increasing and demanding range of tasks and operate more technologically advanced equipment than ever before within an increasing potential threat environment.
...all too often, the focus of design is on the checkpoint at the expense of the staff rooms and training areas...
The introduction of multi-view advanced X-ray machines, Explosive Trace Detection (ETD) systems, and in the future more widespread use of Liquid Explosive Detection Systems (LEDS) places greater demands on security officers in terms of operating the equipment, interpreting results, explaining the process and outcome to passengers, and implementing new policies and procedures. Importantly,
Download your FREE ASI "iPad/iPhone APP" NOW
with an increasing emphasis on customer service and the passenger experience, security officers are expected to exhibit a wider range of behaviours and communications skills than the job previously required. At some airports this causes security officers difficulty as they reconcile their principal function of security with the requirement to deliver high quality customer service, which inevitably involves pressure on throughput. The demands of today’s security tasks
pose issues concerning job design, organisational structure, and resourcing that cannot be resolved by training alone, nor just by procuring advanced technologies. Many airports have experience of deploying a new piece of technology, a ‘smart gate’ or a tray return system, that has actually increased staff requirements rather than reduced them, and hence not delivered the operational benefits that were expected. The tendency is to look for a technological solution, or to change the physical layout of the security checkpoint: ‘hard’ interventions are typically more visible and tangible than ‘soft’, people-focused interventions. A successful blend of the two can be achieved, though, by implementing a
June 2012 Aviationsecurityinternational
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52