The Architectural Engineer Role In Designing And Applying Security Systems - Report Example

Abstract This paper explores the role of an architecture engineer in designing and applying security systems in their design. The integrity of a building project may be threatened by security-related risks. Architects have the role of ensuring that a building is sufficiently protected and free from such risks through designs that control people’s behaviour. Hence, architecture engineer applies security systems for building in their design. This paper concludes that an architecture engineer has to set obligations and restrictions on people’s behaviour by designing security systems. They also design frameworks for shaping attitudes and perceptions towards security systems and values on security systems. Introduction The design process defines each security component that should be integrated into the security system to support security objectives. To ensure the efficiency and suitability of a security system, a range of variables, such as underlying risks, security needs, business expectations, workflow, facility use and size of facility, have to be balanced (Hunstad & Hallberg, 2007). Taking into consideration that a project may be at risk of failure of security-related issues, architects have the role of ensuring that a building is sufficiently protected and free from security threats (Shoemaker, Ingalsbe & Mead, 2013). Hence, architecture engineer is involved in designing and applying security systems for building in their design (Cooper & DeGrazio, 1995). According to Cultural Theory, perceived risks are closely related to social learning and cultural alignment or adherence. The theory postulates that people choose what to fear and how far they should fear it. Basing on whether an individual is socially participating and the cultural group that the individual belongs to, an individual will often focus on various kinds of risks (Oltedal et al., 2004). Hence, the theory can predict and hypothesise what kinds of hazards or risks a building is exposed to basing on the cultural and social practices of the building’s location. Based on this theory, the objective of this report is to: Examine whether an architecture engineer set obligations and restrictions (or constraints) on individual's behaviour by designing security systems. Determine whether architecture engineer can design frameworks for shaping four distinct cultural biases (fatalism hierarchism, individualism and egalitarianism) towards security systems. Background of the Study A number of problems are inherent with launching an approach to security. Application of a range of security systems can significantly increase the risks associated with breaches in security. A good security system should however be resilient to changes and errors (Schneier, 2001). Hence, there is a need to get it right from the beginning, as this is a keystone to efficient security system development. Regrettably, systems will always be exposed to some level of security risks. Therefore, there is a need for architecture engineers to design and apply security systems from the start. Security requirements in designing a project are often determined in the systematic lifecycle (Flynn, 2006). Despite this, the requirements are often viewed as general mechanisms that are identified from a standard list of security threats, such as burglary, fire, terrorist attack or date protection (Dusenberry, 2010). In many case, the security identified are created separately from the rest of the engineering activity, In this case, they are not incorporated into the mainstream design requirements. Due to this aspect, security requirements specific to a system and that protect essential facilities, assets or services are in many cases neglected. Studies on requirement engineering emphasise the capabilities a security system will provide (Challinger, 2008). In this case, much attention should be given to the role of the architecture engineer in defining the key security requirements. An underlying problem involves instances where the security requirements are not defined properly as a result the resulting security system can be evaluated effectively for success of failure before it is implemented (Ramanathan et al., 2012; Lee, 2008). Designing security systems is concerned with installing vast software packages, electronic equipment, or the right surveillance system. In addition, it is concerned with putting into perspective the occupancy considerations and the building types (WBDG, 2013). At the same time, various kinds of building are subject to the kind of careful security planning that goes together with the architectural design process. To ensure an effective and cost-effective level of security, there is a need for the building to integrate various security components in their design (Shoemaker, Ingalsbe & Mead, 2013). Significance of the Study Architecture engineer plays a critical role in ensuring the success of any building project. A number of studies have indicated that security risks in the designs can cost 10 to 200 times more in correcting a defect once executed than if detected and controlled at the early stage of a design (Cooper & DeGrazio, 1995; Jonathan, 2009). A number of studies have also indicated that reworking designs of projects can cost between 40% and 50% of the total project effort, while the defects or failures that originate during design or requirement engineering is approximated at around 50%. In addition, the total percentage of project cost resulting from design defects is between 25% and 40% (Cooper & DeGrazio, 1995). Hence, the cost of poor security requirement evidences that even minor improvement in the area can guarantee a high value (Kaliba et al., 2009; Tumi et al., 2009; Cooper & DeGrazio, 1995). These underlying risks may be prevented during the early-stages of designing a building. Hence, there is a need to study the role of an architecture engineer in designing and applying security systems in their design (Beardsley, 2013). These facts imply a range of significances to the government, individuals, students and the industry. The study will be significant in policymaking and urban planning. By understanding the role of architects in designing security systems, the government can include architects in policymaking discussions and in designing innovative and sustainable security systems within the urban places. To the industry, it will increase the level of design research, advocacy, collaboration and policy development. Individuals can get to understand the culture of design in strengthening security systems. It also promotes the role of individual architectures in designing and maintaining security systems. The study also promotes the advancement of knowledge in security designs, which increase students’ knowledge areas. Architect’s Role in Designing and Applying Security Systems Lockton (2011) stated that in the process of designing an environment where people live and work, architecture engineers seek to control human behaviour with the view of restricting access to certain areas of facility. Lockton (2011) further noted that in practice, most architectural patterns that are intended to control human behaviour involve the building’s physical arrangement both inside and outside in such a way that will have an psychological impact on the users. Such scenarios are germane in specific facilities such as hotels and hospital where the need to restrict access must be balanced off with the need to provide an environment that is welcoming (Hunstad & Hallberg, 2007). According to Lockton (2011), a critical design factor is the latent offensiveness in security systems. Architecture engineers play a critical factor in designing the building in such a way that access control does not intimidate users of the facility while at the same time restricting access to particular areas inside a facility (Challinger, 2008). A significant factor to consider is the role of an architecture engineer and what should be protected. The role of the architect is to ensure the safety of all occupants of the building. However, security considerations transcend these as it is also concerned with controlling those who may enter the building to those who are permitted to access particular sections of the building (Petersen, 2007). The role of an architecture engineer in designing and applying security systems is not a stand-alone concern. Rather, it is tied to a number of considerations that combine the entire building’s systems, such as telecommunications, power and essential utilities. This perspective relates Shoemaker et al. (2013) idea that perception of risk transcends individual and is a socio-cultural construct that reflects symbols, values, ideologies and history. An architecture engineer plays an important role in deciding which security systems are relevant to a facility. According to Petersen (2007), the features needed for such a system ranges from one case to the other and is influenced by elements such as cost, time, risks and throughput. Flynn (2006) suggested that the main benefit of having the capacity to make rational decisions on which security systems are required lies on eliminating the number of defaults of a system. The architecture engineers also play a critical role in capturing the relationship between a security system and its environment (Brauch, 2007). According to Petersen (2007), the interactions and correlations between a facility’s environment and security system need to be captured for the system to work efficiently. The result is often a complex structure, where trust is a vital component. Since he is involved in all the stages of a building project, his role is reflected in responding to the design’s security needs. An architecture engineer works in the capacity of a risk manager in ensuring that the systems designed experience minimized or controlled risks. Hunstad and Hallberg (2007) suggested that when a risk management approach is applied in designing systems, it enables the security architecture to be responsive to business needs. Petersen (2007), views risk as a function of threats that exploit vulnerabilities against a protected facility. The role of the architecture engineers is to mitigate the threats and vulnerabilities using countermeasures. Hunstad and Hallberg (2007) summarized that the role of an architecture engineer is not to steer a facility away from risks but to come up with countermeasures that enables a facility to guard against much risk. Architecture engineers tailor security systems to building types. As stated by Cooper and DeGrazio (1995), building types present a range of security-related challenged to building designers or architects prompting the need to focus on the challenges with tact. Cooper and DeGrazio (1995) added that the significance of architects is prompted by the need achieve security while at the same time taking precaution not to impeded legitimate access in humane facilities, such as hospitals, hence the need to integrate security elements in the early stages of designing the system. Input by architecture engineers at the early stages of design can help space planners to reduce the amount of electronic security that a complete facility will need (Cooper & DeGrazio, 1995). In consistency with this view, Hunstad and Hallberg (2007) suggested that a significant consideration in architecture is the cost of electronic systems as well as the level of technical expertise required to operate the systems. In his view, architects can help optimize the security system of a building by determining the size of perimeter barriers, staircase, doors and windows. Underlying Theory An elementary relevance of an architecture engineer in designing and applying security systems in their design is essentially to ensure risk avoidance in designed projects (Soltani & Yusof, 2012). Some theoretical perspectives can be applied in mitigating risks or drive risk through project cycle. An underlying theory is the Cultural Theory. The theory sets off with the assumption that people within a certain society have differing values and perception on how a society should be. According to the theory, judgments and attitudes on risks and about patterns or social perception or justice as set out in cultural relationships, through expectations and values of a distinctive group (Sjorberg et al. 2007; Kahan et al., 2010; Morrow, 2009). Hence, architects should acknowledge the diversity of world views in a society to avoid having reciprocal blind spots in security systems designed. At the same time, they can leverage the diversity of world views to design security systems that offer one-track solutions for society as a whole. Tasney and O-riordian (1999) defines Cultural Theory as a way in which people interpret and form judgments about danger, threats and risks. The basis of the theory is that such judgments are formed within the social context rather than independently. Cultural theory also presents normative guidelines, which outline the processes through which decisions on risk-related issues are made over substantive issues related to risk quantification. Cultural Theory becomes relevant to architectural engineers at this stage. Tasney and O-riordian (1999) identified the key dichotomies in risk research, the most significant of which are those between social perception and technical risk analysis. Social amplification tends to integrationist in scope although it seeks to reconcile the what can be reconciled. On the other hand, the technical approach to risk analysis involves characterization the probability of exposures and magnitude of risks. Hence, the normative choice is reducing the largest risks to which a facility or people are exposed to. Simply put, risk is essentially about safety. In risk mitigation, architects use the technical approach in designing security systems to manage the largest risks that a facility is exposed to. Among other features of the theory are the ways in which cultural ways of life and associated perceptions can be characterized along two aspects: grid and group. Group describes whether one is a member of a bonder social unit and how the individual’s activities relate to the group. On the other hand, grid describes the extent in which a social context is restrictive and regulated in respect to an individual’s behaviour (Oltedal et al., 2004). In regards to the four distinct cultural biases of Cultural Theory (fatalism hierarchism, individualism and egalitarianism), a high group way of life depicts a high level of collective control, while a high grid way of life represents prominent and durable kinds of stratification roles (Fig 1). The role of an architecture engineer can also be integrated into this perspective. Figure 1: Grid-group model (Oltedal et al., 2004). The Cultural Theory and risk perception assume that an institution perceives the risks within the organisational context or mitigates them (Bener, 2000). The assumption is based on the Bener’s (2000) argument that different culture come up with own schema for perceiving the world, such as egalitarianism, individualism, hierarchy and fatalism, which can be shaped by an organization or institution. An architect takes these schemas into perspective by seeking to manage the greatest security risks each schema is exposed to. Discussion If the architecture engineers are provided with sufficient information on a security risks, relevant information on the level of exposure to the risks and estimations of the likelihood of the risk to a facility, they can reasonably estimate risks at the location. Security system designs are dependent on the location and type of building in addition to what has to be secured. Additionally, security needs have to be addressed at the early-stage of design process. To this end, such risk perception can be defined as subjective evaluation of the probability of a certain type of threats and how significant the consequences are. Perceiving risk includes evaluating the likelihood in addition to the consequences of the negative outcome. The architecture plays a significant role perceiving risks and addressing the security needs in his designs with the view of ensuring the integrity of a building during its ultimate operation. According to the Cultural Theory, the perceiver of the risks is not a separate individual. Rather, he maintains social relationships in a social context. Architecture engineer are designated perceivers of risks. They are involved in designing security systems to promote a high grid way of life by setting obligations and restrictions (or constraints) on individual's behaviour, providing a framework for shaping their attitudes and perceptions towards security systems and defining the values they should place on security systems. Conclusion Architecture engineer set obligations and restrictions (or constraints) on people’s behaviour by designing security systems. They also design frameworks for shaping attitudes and perceptions towards security systems and values on security systems. To ensure this, they put security system requirements into consideration at the initial stages of the design process, failure to which the risks of construction schedules, budget troubles and inadequate security result. This may call for substantial redesigning the construction project and thus inflating the cost. Hence, the role of the architecture engineer in making a complete list of issues related to security in order to be aware of the outset of the design. At this stage, effective security is an interchange of three components, namely architectural and natural barriers, which may include anything from designing landscape strategies to ward off access to the size, location and number of the doors. Second is human security, which include protection provided by security guards and thirdly, electronic security, which is provided by any electronic security system. Reference List Beardsley, J. (2013). Security 101: Understanding the Common Layered Security Concept. The Valley Business Journal Bener, A. (2000). Risk Perception, Trust And Credibility: A Case In Internet Banking. London School of Economics. Retrieved: Brauch, H. (2007). Coping with Global Environmental Change, Disasters and Security. Hexagon Series on Human and Environmental Security and Peace Challinger, D. (2008). From the Ground Up: Security for Tall Buildings. CRISP Report. Alexandria, VA: ASIS Foundation, Inc Schneier, B. (2001). The Security Patch Treadmill. Crypto-Gram Newsletter Cooper, W. & DeGrazio, R. (1995). Building Security: An Architect's Guide. Progressive Architecture, pp. 78-83. Dusenberry, D. (2010). Handbook for Blast Resistant Design of Buildings. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Flynn, H. (2006). Designing and Building Enterprise DMZs. Rockland, MA: Syngress Hunstad, A. & Hallberg, J. (2007). Design for securability – Applying engineering principles to the design of security architectures. Published in the Workshop for Application of Engineering Principles to System Security Design (WAEPSSD) Proceedings Jonathan, J. (2009). A psychological perspective on vulnerability in the fear of crime. Psychology, Crime and Law, 15 (4), 1-17 Kahan, D., Jenkins, H. & Braman, D. (2010). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 1–28 Kaliba, C., Muya, M. & Mumba, K. (2009). Cost escalation and schedule delays in road construction projects in Zambia. International Journal of Project Management, 27, 522-531 Lee, M. (2008). Fear of Crime: Critical Voices in an Age of Anxiety. New York: Routledge Lockton, D. (2011). Architecture, urbanism, design and behaviour: a brief review. Design with Intent. Retrieved: Morrow, B. (2009). Risk Behavior and Risk Communication: Synthesis and Expert Interviews. Final Report for the NOAA Coastal Services Center Oltedal, S., Moen, B., Klempe, H. & Rundmo, T. (2004). Explaining risk perception. An evaluation of cultural theory. Trondheim: Rotunde publikasjone Petersen, G.(2007). Security Architecture Blueprint. Retrieved from Arctec Group: Ramanathan, C., Narayan, S. & Idrus, A. (2012). Construction delays causing risks on time and cost – a critical review. Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 12 (1), 37-57 Shoemaker, Ingalsbe, J. & Mead, N. (2013). Teaching Security Requirements Engineering Using SQUARE. Carnegie Mellon University and IEEE 2005-2013. Sjorberg, L., Moen, B. & Rundmo, T. (2007). Explaining risk perception. An evaluation of the psychometric paradigm in risk perception research. Trondheim: Rotunde Publicjasjoner Soltani, F. & Yusof, M. (2012). Concept of Security in the Theoretical Approaches. Research Journal of International Studies 1, 7-16 Tasney, J. & O-riordian, T. (1999). Cultural theory and risk: a review, Health, Risk & Society, 1(1), 71-88 Tumi. S., Omran. A. & Pakir. A. (2009). Causes of delay in construction Industry in Libya. The International Conference on Administration and Business, 265-272 WBDG (2013). Security for Building Occupants and Assets. Retrieved from National Institute of Building Sciences website: Read More