The PSSA ‘In Conversation with…’ series features our MD, Iain Moran this month.

Every month, the PSSA feature leading lights in the sector, PSSA members, and others who are able to give insight into the current state of the physical security sector, and factors currently affecting it.

With almost 20 years of HVM and Perimeter Security experience, Iain’s career has taken him from installing and maintaining permanent HVM solutions, to being the Sales Director for ATG Access, and now the Managing Director of Crowdguard.

---

Q: Could you begin by telling us about your professional background and experience in perimeter security and Hostile Vehicle Mitigation (HVM)?

IM: I have been involved with HVM and Perimeter Security since the British Standards were created back in 2006. I worked for a leading manufacturer at the forefront of developing HVM products. My background of installing and maintaining permanent HVM installations gives me an in-depth knowledge of systems in order to specify the correct measures for client’s operational needs, environmental factors and security ratings.

Then I moved into the temporary environment utilising this skill set and experience to allow for rapidly deployable solutions to be installed for event spaces to protect crowds. Working closely with multiple stakeholders from supply chain, through to end user and everyone in between.

Q: In your experience, how has perimeter security and HVM evolved in recent years, particularly in response to emerging threats?

IM: I believe that products and clients’ requirements are now more cohesive than they used to be – there is a greater understanding in the permanent HVM realm to meet certain aesthetic requirements and I believe that manufacturers do this very well. This gives greater scope to meet end user requirements and blend security in, whilst still presenting a secure message or visual deterrent with back up certification.

In the temporary event market space, HVM products have come on leaps and bounds with product development providing clients with much better measures that meet higher security ratings from not only high-speed attacks but lower speed Vehicle-as-a-Weapon (VAW) style attacks, also coupled with easier to deploy systems.

It is vital to remember though that the barrier, when it comes to HVM, is only one part of the HVM scheme – process and operational protocol are vital elements to any successful deployment, and I feel that as an industry HVM providers need to be more attuned to this.

Q: What do you consider to be the most significant threats that perimeter security and HVM solutions need to address today?

IM: This is a great question, and I believe there are multiple perspectives to consider.

A simple answer would be to say HVM solutions need to meet a certain level of protection or testing criteria, but it’s more complex than that.

HVM solutions – temporary or permanent – need to ultimately take in a client’s requirements first and foremost. These commonly come down to security rating, aesthetic, operational requirement and budget – and not necessarily in that order.

The above should be determined and combined by a client understanding what the actual requirement to install a measure is, and whether a measure should be installed at all. So, the market needs to be educated and integrators such as us and manufacturers, and all members of the PSSA, should have a common goal to provide the best advice possible and follow best practice. Whether through TVRA or early engagement with manufacturers, clients need education and support to understand these matters. Members of the PSSA should be the go-to resource for this guidance.

Q: How has technology enhanced the effectiveness of perimeter security and HVM systems, and what cutting-edge innovations do you see making a difference soon?

IM: As alluded to earlier, technology has played a big part in HVM – be it shallow permanent solutions or easier to deploy higher rated temporary solutions.

I think, going forward, in the temporary event space solutions that can be monitored and alarmed to allow a record of operation or of tampering will be a good step forward to help create a more rounded, robust solution.

Q: Do you feel there is sufficient clarity on testing standards for HVM equipment, such as those detailed by the National Protective Security Authority (NPSA), including the Vehicle Attack Delay Standard (VADS), ISO 22343-1, and international standards such as Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN) testing?

IM: I think there is sufficient clarity if you are talking to industry. I don’t think that there is enough clarity to end users and stakeholders who do not specialise in HVM and find it a small remit of their overall task/job.

I believe the messaging from NPSA, NACTSO, and PSSA should be more unified and consistent, delivering the same clear message to the stakeholders we engage with. Additionally, our focus shouldn’t be solely on the security or rating of a product. There needs to be greater emphasis on understanding risk, residual risk, and the importance of evaluating and accepting risk when appropriate, along with why this approach is valid

Q: If there are gaps in clarity or inconsistencies in the existing standards, what would you suggest as potential solutions to improve the effectiveness and transparency of HVM testing standards?

IM: My personal view is that that the standards are quite clear and easy to understand.

I think it’s more about the messaging to people as to what, why and how things should be done, which needs to be clearer to sectors that may require HVM.

The governing bodies used to be very good at getting this message out and, for varying reasons, it is not as good as it once was. I feel the PSSA has a role to play here in getting support from the governing bodies and getting the message out, but PSSA members should all be on the same page about this.

Q: What are some of the key challenges that organisations will face when implementing effective perimeter security and HVM measures, if required to do so by Martyn’s Law?

IM: There is a lack of understanding—not necessarily about what the law may require them to do (which is still uncertain)—but about how to actually implement those requirements.

When the law is passed, many individuals may suddenly present themselves as experts in this field, and organisations need to be cautious of this.

Additionally, there will be people in relevant roles who have never even heard of HVM, which highlights the critical importance of education.

Understanding risk and proportionality is absolute key to determine if anything should be done.

It is crucial to ensure that people work with reputable companies that have a proven track record. HVM is not a commoditized asset and should not be handled by just anyone

Q: How do you balance the need for robust security measures with the practicalities of maintaining open access and usability for legitimate users, such as in public spaces or corporate environments?

IM: Usability is key – it’s more important than the security rating of the product – as you can have the most secure product in the world but if it does not meet the operational requirements, then it doesn’t get used, so it is useless.

First thing to understand is the operational requirements of an event/venue/building or PALs regardless of temporary or permanent measures.

Understand not only the potential threat you need to protect against but also consider these factors together, including the budget, to identify the best product for the job.

This is when it’s vital for people to understand the risk and the threat (which are very different things) so they can make an informed decision on changing operational protocol or accepting that a product selected may not mitigate fully against the threat. It is all about engagement, education and understanding.

Q: Can you share any real-world examples or case studies where your perimeter security/ HVM solutions have been successfully deployed to mitigate against hostile vehicle attacks?

IM: We have deployed product at over 300 events this year in the UK alone as well as additional schemes internationally.

All of these projects have either followed our PLAN, PROVIDE, PROTECT Model or elements of it.

Q: Looking ahead, what trends do you foresee in the perimeter security and HVM space, and what recommendations would you offer to organisations seeking to enhance their defences against vehicle-borne threats?

IM: Not sure it’s a trend but it should be, education, education, education.

Early engagement with reputable companies who can advise on what is the best course of action to take and not to just get lumbered with a HVM product without a service.

Correct installation of a product is equally important as the product itself. Organisations should always be advised where the risk lies, and they should clearly understand what they are getting.