Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Die SlideShare-Präsentation wird heruntergeladen. ×

CRISP Stakeholder Analysis

Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Wird geladen in …3
×

Hier ansehen

1 von 10 Anzeige

CRISP Stakeholder Analysis

Herunterladen, um offline zu lesen

Findings from Work Package 3 of the CRISP project. Analysis of stakeholder needs from and views on proposed CRISP certification scheme for security products, systems and services.

Findings from Work Package 3 of the CRISP project. Analysis of stakeholder needs from and views on proposed CRISP certification scheme for security products, systems and services.

Anzeige
Anzeige

Weitere Verwandte Inhalte

Diashows für Sie (11)

Andere mochten auch (20)

Anzeige

Ähnlich wie CRISP Stakeholder Analysis (20)

Aktuellste (20)

Anzeige

CRISP Stakeholder Analysis

  1. 1. WP3 Stakeholder Analysis Thordis Sveinsdottir Trilateral Research & Consulting Stakeholder Workshop Amsterdam, 4th December 2014
  2. 2. Objectives of WP3  To identify all direct and indirect stakeholders in the security products and services standardisation and certification sector and understand stakeholder motivations underlying security standardisation and certification.  To gauge stakeholder views on security certification challenges and determine whether and how a new, improved scheme for security certification could be implemented across Europe.  To develop and outline recommendations for standards and evaluation policies for security certification.
  3. 3. WP3 Research Methodology  Desk Research (review of policy, research and grey literature)  Case study research to ascertain a general overview as well as field specific certification issues within:  Alarm systems  Unmanned Aircraft Systems  Video Surveillance  Stakeholder Workshop  Online Survey
  4. 4. Preliminary Findings National Differences  Various ideas around the concept of national differences were mentioned in the interviews as possible barriers to the uptake of a new scheme.  National differences in testing procedures – concerns over quality  Different national security cultures  Different national contexts (e.g. architecture and weather)  Differences in current standards and certification foci “If we were to certify according to a European scheme, we would want to know that our high quality procedures were matched in other countries in Europe” (Respondent, certification body) “We have many different security philosophies in Europe, the reasons for which are historical and cultural. For example, in the UK you will find many different CCTV installation certification schemes and standards, in France it is much more mechanical and in Germany there is focus on avoiding false alarm” (Respondent, test house)
  5. 5. Preliminary Findings Robust yet Flexible scheme  A certain tension seems to emerge between the recommendation that certification schemes and standards be clear and robust – yet flexible enough to respond to changes and be technology neutral and applicable to different types of applications/operations. “our need would be that the scheme be built on robust, unambiguous and clear European standard” (Respondent, certification body) “the scheme would need to be flexible enough to quickly respond to changes in security risks and crime trends” (Respondent, certification association)
  6. 6. Preliminary Findings Social Dimensions  The proposed CRISP scheme will be focused on evaluating and certifying against social dimensions. There are concerns with stakeholders that these criteria may be too conceptual and nuanced for efficient testing and certification schemes to be built. “Standards are more like the rules. You can’t test security with a machine, you need human intelligence to test and all testers are different.” (Respondent, standardisation) “This is different, we have guidelines for the installation and application of security products and this would be more to do with the actual application of the product itself.” (Respondent, testing lab)
  7. 7. Preliminary findings Current regulation  Regulation and law surrounding the social dimensions already exist to differing degrees in European countries. How does a certification scheme compliment and/or interact with these different frameworks? Social dimensions are not so present in current standards and certification but here in the UK we have a robust regulation of these issues with for example, Information Commissioner’s office, CCTV code of practice, Surveillance commissioner and in the EU we have the EU information commissioner. (Respondent, security industry)
  8. 8. Stakeholder workshop  The purpose of the stakeholder workshop is:  To consult with the stakeholder community on the preliminary findings. Can we verify these findings? Are there gaps in our knowledge?  To seek further input into research efforts (contacts, literature, best practice examples etc.)  To help form recommendations for policy and procedure for different stakeholder groups so that a new scheme may be implemented
  9. 9. The CRISP Survey  Online Survey  Objective: To elicit stakeholder views on security certification challenges and whether and how a new, improved scheme for security certification could be implemented across Europe  The survey will be sent out shortly after the workshop to stakeholders across Europe.  We ask that workshop participants assist with research efforts by filling in the survey and if possible publicise it through their networks
  10. 10. Informed Consent  CRISP partners will be taking notes during the workshop  Participants need to be aware that their input will feed into published reports and other written material by the CRISP consortium  Neither participants’ names nor organisations will be mentioned in published material (data will be anonymised and securely stored)  If you have any concerns regarding this, please consult with one of the CRISP partners here today.

×