By Harvey Clark, Lewis and Clark Enterprises LLC

The United States workforce has changed dramatically. Employers have the difficulty of finding qualified and talented people to work in the continental U.S., and therefore, many U.S. corporations have moved part or their manufacturing, assembly and call center operations to other countries. Some experts blame the cost of labor and benefits, others argue Americans are lazy and some claim that corporate greed, driven by expectations of profits to shareholders, is to blame.

This departure to other countries for labor has created problems for management, now faced with an extensive diverse global workforce. It has forced employers to recognize and implement cultural diversity awareness training.

Cultural diversity has several dimensions and they need to be examined and considered in developing programs for the workplace. An individual’s character, values, ethics, communication styles, and attitude toward authority are derived from a combination of these dimensions. Programs should include information on religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, socioeconomics and disabilities. Additionally, education, income, where they live and work experience should be included.

As an example, when traveling to a foreign country where a person knows and understands little of the native customs, language, or its culture, he or she might make a statement with good intentions only to learn afterward it caused embarrassment, or worse, insulted someone.

Recently, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveled to Russia and offered a gift of a “Red Button” to indicate the “resetting” of the commitment of the two countries to work together in peace. The Russian translation was supposed to read “reset,” however, “reset” was mistranslated and printed as “overcharged,” on the button. This was not only embarrassing for Clinton but also the United States.

In another more common case, when attempting to make someone understand what is being said, a person just raises their voice, repeating it louder the second time, thinking the other will understand it better, only to find out he or she is not deaf and that hearing is not the problem.

In a 2005 article, A Workplace Diversity Training and Management Model, Mitra Toossi was quoted as saying, “The composition and growth of the labor force in the United States from 2002 to 2012 will be significantly impacted by the aging of the ‘baby boom’ generation made up of those participants who were born between 1946 and 1964. It is projected that by 2012, youth will be made up of 15 percent of the labor force. The Hispanic labor force will reach 23.8 million by 2012.” (Toossi, 2004) This increase is in part due to the massive immigration levels America is experiencing at its borders, particularly from Mexico. “The United States Department of Labor in 1987 made projections that minorities and women would make up 80 percent of the workforce by 2012.” (Toossi, 2004)

When developing a cultural awareness training program in the workplace, research is clear. In order to foster honesty and trust in the workplace environment, employers should create a non-threatening management training program. This fosters a more positive and productive work atmosphere. In order to be successful, senior management must value and support this level of training, understanding that changes in culture take time. Training modules need to be taught not only to existing employees but also to all new hires. Some companies may consider a program director that would be responsible for the design, implementation and training of cultural awareness in the workplace.

The National Academy of Engineers (NAE) recognized the problem years ago and has done extensive research and development into programs of cultural diversity. In 2001, NAE provided workshops in Washington D.C., hosted by the academy’s committee on diversity in the engineering workforce. The workshops were designed to stimulate interaction and share information about successful corporate programs. More than 70 representatives from companies were present.

NAE’s president, William A. Wulf, stated, “As a consequence of lack of diversity, we pay an opportunity cost, a cost in designs not thought of, in solutions not produced.” (Diversity in Engineering: Managing the Workforce of the Future. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 2002; on line at {www.nap.edu}).

A few notable companies present were IBM, Motorola, Consolidated Edison (ConEd), Texaco, and Ford Motor Company. Jim Padilla, vice president of Global Manufacturing for Ford said, “As company leaders, we are challenged daily to be flexible and to recognize that there are as many ways to do a job as there are people in the world. True diversity, I believe, celebrates the rich qualities and experiences employees bring to their jobs each day and considers those qualities to be among the company’s greatest assets. This, of course, is a matter of fairness and justice, but is also good business.”

As our country and the global economic conditions continue to fluctuate and many businesses reduce workforces, the need and challenge to find qualified workers will continue to demand business owners and corporate America to commit to non-traditional sources for new hires and the development and implementation of a good diversified training program. Employers understand the high costs and value of recruiting, hiring, training and keeping good employees. The costs are even higher if an employer must replace even one employee. Having and maintaining a diverse workforce may give employers a competitive advantage in being able to provide better service. With proper training employers can expect to improve and increase working relationships with their staff, clients and suppliers.

References:

Russette, J., Scully, R., & Preziosi, R. (2008, January). LEADERSHIP ACROSS CULTURES: A COMPARATIVE STUDY. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 7, 47-61. Retrieved March 14, 2009, from Business Source Complete database

By Bill Hobgood
Editor’s note: This excerpt is taken from an article written in the March, 2009 edition of Public Safety Communications published by APCO International. We have included comments from NBFAA members.

Miscommunication between alarm company operators and Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) call-takers occurs every day in almost every PSAP across the country. Fortunately, most mistakes are caught as information is received through the verbal repeat verification method by the call-taker. When mistakes aren’t caught during this verbal information exchange, consequences can include lawsuits, disciplinary actions and a black eye for both the alarm industry and 911.

The world is culturally diverse, consisting of many different languages and speech tones. Employees working for the alarm monitoring industry and the PSAPs are no exception. Some alarm monitoring companies use call centers outside of the U.S., which can make 911 calls from an overseas call center challenging for PSAP call-takers if the call center operator speaks broken English or has a heavy accent. Foreign countries aside, conversations between an alarm company operator with a thick Southern accent who is trying to relay information to a PSAP call-taker with a thick Brooklyn accent can be equally challenging. It’s a fact of life: We don’t all speak the same.

The not-so-obvious problem with these telephone conversations is that they occurred at all. But how would the PSAP receive information about an alarm event if the alarm monitoring company didn’t call? The short answer: via an electronic computer-to-computer data exchange that conforms to the National Information Exchange Model (NIEM). A representative exchange standard, developed by APCO International in conjunction with the IJIS Institute, multiple public safety agencies and Vector Security, an NBFAA and Central Station Alarm Association (CSAA) member representing the alarm monitoring industry, was approved in January 2009 by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The new national standard is intended for use by all Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) providers, alarm monitoring company software providers and PSAP CAD systems.

“The PSAP CAD External Alarm Interface Exchange project has been a great example of the public and private sectors working together to utilize technology to create efficiencies, address problems and improve services. The benefits to PSAPs and alarm companies are obvious, but the real winner is the alarm owner who benefits from faster and more accurate response times from responding agencies,” said Pam Petrow, COO, Vector Security, Inc.

Functionality: The purpose of the Alarm Monitoring Company to PSAP CAD External Alarm Interface Exchange, APCO/CSAA 2.101.1-2008, is to provide a standard data exchange for electronically transmitting information between an alarm monitoring company and a PSAP.

Three primary uses for this standard:
1. Initial notification of an alarm event;
2. Bi-directional status update between an alarm monitoring company and the PSAP; and
3. Bi-directional update of other events between an alarm monitoring company and a PSAP.

The benefits: After the pilot program was in operation for two and a half years, more than 5,500 alarm exchanges were transmitted between Vector Security and Virginia PSAPs. The benefits include:
1. 5,500 fewer calls to PSAPs, eliminating the need for the alarm monitoring company operator to converse with the call-taker and the potential for miscommunication; and
2. A decrease in response times to alarm-related calls for service, resulting in an increase in law enforcement apprehensions, fires that were extinguished more quickly and more lives being saved.

The two Virginia PSAPs, City of Richmond and York County, receive 18,000 telephone calls annually from alarm companies that require the dispatch of first responders. This equates to 45,000 telephone calls from alarm companies in a two-and-a-half-year period. The pilot alarm interface exchange reduced the number of calls by 5,500. After additional alarm companies come on board, the call volume to these PSAPs will be reduced even further.

The bottom line: The number of telephone calls from alarm monitoring companies to PSAPs to report a new alarm event reaches into the tens of millions, which does not include follow-up calls from those companies. It has been suggested that the total call volume from the alarm companies to the PSAPs could range between 40-50 million. This new standard has the potential to eliminate most of these calls.

“I am enthusiastic about the advancements being made with the NIEM,” said Blane Comeaux, vice president, Acadian Monitoring Services. “As the article points out, there are many chances for error with human-to-human communication during an alarm event and notification between the monitoring company and the PSAP/911 center. An electronic interface will serve to minimize these errors and simultaneously reduce phone time between center personnel.”

Dave Simon, Brink’s Home Security Senior Manager, Government and Industry Affairs, said, “Electronic dispatching holds strong promise for reducing calls and on-hold time. Rather than an operator being on a call with the 911 dispatcher, the information is instantaneously transmitted. We can also distribute more information to the agency this way, and improve two-way communication. Rather than a phone call leading to a discussion, the exact information can be transmitted. Electronic dispatching will help with the exactness of the message – electronically lining up the required data and making sure it goes to the proper jurisdiction.”

For more information about the Alarm Monitoring Company to PSAP CAD External Alarm Interface Exchange, APCO/CSAA 2.101.1-2008 standard, go to www.apcointl.org/new/commcenter911/APCOstandards.php.

In this video interview, Ralph Sevinor, Wayne Alarm Systems, Inc., talks with Ron Davis, Davis Marketing Group aka The Graybeards, about the changes in the alarm industry and how his business has evolved.

By Harvey Clark, Lewis and Clark Enterprises

Most of us, being small business owners, wear several hats and keep multiple balls in the air. We do not often think about the security and protection of our company and client information.

Today, protecting data is a major consideration and a must in any business. You may feel some of these issues do not apply to you or your company, but I remember what my father used to say, “There’s no problem until there’s a problem.” Think about that. Imagine what would happen if there was a data breach in your company. What would you do? What could you do? And, more importantly, are you prepared for the consequences? The federal government has created several laws, rules and guidelines to regulate and help businesses protect consumer data.

The Gramm, Leach, Bliley Safeguard Rule (GLB Rule) applies to any organization that maintains personal financial information regarding its clients or customers.

This includes anyone who collects sensitive information from consumers to obtain authorization for credit card purchases such as first and last name, address, e-mail, telephone, credit card number, expiration date, and security code. This is considered non-public information (NPI) which, if lost under the wrong set of circumstances, may result in fines, up to 10 years in jail, removal of management, and executives can be held for non-compliance both civil and criminally. With risks this high, consideration should be given to developing a “Sensitive and Non-Public Information Policy” and appoint a compliance officer.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has a list of “non-bank” businesses that may be unaware that they are subject to the GLB Rule. Even if you think you are not on the list of non-bank businesses, isn’t it time to review your policies and procedures just in case? Eight federal agencies and any state can enforce this law. You can obtain more information by going directly to http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/privacyinitiatives/financial_rule.html or http://www.ftc.gov/os/2002/05/67fr36585.pdf.

The Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACTA) applies to every business and individual who maintains, or otherwise possesses, consumer information for a business purpose. Employee or customer information lost under the wrong set of circumstances may also cost your company. Federal and state fines can be assessed per occurrence, along with civil liabilities, class action lawsuits with no statutory limitations and responsibility of the actual losses of the individual may also be assessed. Not only is maintaining the information vitally important, so is the disposal of the information. For more information about proper disposal, visit http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/11/041118disposalfrn.pdf.

Business owners, big and small, should seriously consider developing and implementing safeguards and a plan. You can get additional information on how you should setup your plan and what it should include at http://www.ftc.gov/infosecurity/.

The site contains a lot of useful information and an in-depth guide for implementing a “Sensitive and Non-Public Information Policy” that includes five key principles for handling NPI. The five principles are:

1. Take Stock – Know what personal info you have.
2. Scale Down – Keep only the data you need.
3. Lock it Down – Protect the info you have.
4. Pitch It – Properly dispose info when no longer needed.
5. Plan Ahead – Create a plan to respond to any security breaches.

Utilizing this tool will assist you in determining exactly how sound your company policies are in regards to non-public information. The key is to act now, don’t wait to react later. It may be too late and very costly.

By Bill Hobgood

Editor’s note: This excerpt is taken from an article written in the March, 2009 edition of Public Safety Communications published by APCO International. We have included comments from NBFAA members.

Miscommunication between alarm company operators and Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) call-takers occurs every day in almost every PSAP across the country. Fortunately, most mistakes are caught as information is received through the verbal repeat verification method by the call-taker. When mistakes aren’t caught during this verbal information exchange, consequences can include lawsuits, disciplinary actions and a black eye for both the alarm industry and 911.

The world is culturally diverse, consisting of many different languages and speech tones. Employees working for the alarm monitoring industry and the PSAPs are no exception. Some alarm monitoring companies use call centers outside of the U.S. 911 calls from an overseas call center are often challenging for PSAP call-takers if the call center operator speaks broken English or has a heavy accent. Foreign countries aside, conversations between an alarm company operator with a thick Southern accent who is trying to relay information to a PSAP call-taker with a thick Brooklyn accent can be equally challenging. It’s a fact of life: We don’t all speak the same.

The not-so-obvious problem with these telephone conversations is that they occurred at all. But how would the PSAP receive information about an alarm event if the alarm monitoring company didn’t call? The short answer: via an electronic computer-to-computer data exchange that conforms to the National Information Exchange Model (NIEM). A representative exchange standard, developed by APCO International in conjunction with the IJIS Institute, multiple public safety agencies and Vector Security, an NBFAA and Central Station Alarm Association (CSAA) member representing the alarm monitoring industry, was approved in January 2009 by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The new national standard is intended for use by all Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) providers, alarm monitoring company software providers and PSAP CAD systems.

“The PSAP CAD External Alarm Interface Exchange project has been a great example of the public and private sectors working together to utilize technology to create efficiencies, address problems and improve services. The benefits to PSAPs and alarm companies are obvious, but the real winner is the alarm owner who benefits from faster and more accurate response times from responding agencies,” said Pam Petrow, COO, Vector Security, Inc.

Functionality: The purpose of the Alarm Monitoring Company to PSAP CAD External Alarm Interface Exchange, APCO/CSAA 2.101.1-2008, is to provide a standard data exchange for electronically transmitting information between an alarm monitoring company and a PSAP.

Three primary uses for this standard:
1. Initial notification of an alarm event;
2. Bi-directional status update between an alarm monitoring company and the PSAP; and
3. Bi-directional update of other events between an alarm monitoring company and a PSAP.

The benefits: After the pilot program was in operation for two and a half years, more than 5,500 alarm exchanges were transmitted between Vector Security and Virginia PSAPs. The benefits include:
1. 5,500 fewer calls to PSAPs, eliminating the need for the alarm monitoring company operator to converse with the call-taker and the potential for miscommunication; and
2. A decrease in response times to alarm-related calls for service, resulting in an increase in law enforcement apprehensions, fires that were extinguished more quickly and more lives being saved.

The two Virginia PSAPs, City of Richmond and York County, receive 18,000 telephone calls annually from alarm companies that require the dispatch of first responders. This equates to 45,000 telephone calls from alarm companies in a two-and-a-half-year period. The pilot alarm interface exchange reduced the number of calls by 5,500. After additional alarm companies come on board, the call volume to these PSAPs will be reduced even further.

The bottom line: The number of telephone calls from alarm monitoring companies to PSAPs to report a new alarm event reaches into the tens of millions, which does not include follow-up calls from those companies. It has been suggested that the total call volume from the alarm companies to the PSAPs could range between 40-50 million. This new standard has the potential to eliminate most of these calls.

“I am enthusiastic about the advancements being made with the NIEM,” said Blane Comeaux, vice president, Acadian Monitoring Services. “As the article points out, there are many chances for error with human-to-human communication during an alarm event and notification between the monitoring company and the PSAP/911 center. An electronic interface will serve to minimize these errors and simultaneously reduce phone time between center personnel .”

Dave Simon, Brink’s Home Security Senior Manager, Government and Industry Affairs, said, “Electronic dispatching holds strong promise for reducing calls and on-hold time. Rather than an operator being on a call with the 911 dispatcher, the information is instantaneously transmitted. We can also distribute more information to the agency this way, and improve two-way communication. For monitoring centers, electronic dispatching will help us stay ahead of the need for additional manpower, and decrease the amount of time needed to process calls – getting the operator off the call more quickly. Rather than a phone call leading to a discussion, the exact information can be transmitted. This reduces handling time. Electronic dispatching will help with the exactness of the message – electronically lining up the required data and making sure it goes to the proper jurisdiction.”