Entry tags:
bad design
I discovered today that our office has a race condition.
The doors from our space to the hall are connected to an alarm system. To enter through one of those doors you have to swipe a card and enter a code; to leave through one of those doors you have to push a button, which (we were told) disables the alarm for 60 seconds. 60 seconds ought to be long enough for anyone to walk the 10 feet to the door and get out, so I've been puzzled by the frequency with which the alarm goes off. We're all smart people -- are we really that bad about remembering to hit the button?
This afternoon I hit the button, saw the indicator light that said I'd connected, opened the door -- and set off the alarm. That's when I learned that closing a door resets the alarm; it's not really a 60-second window. So if I hit the button while the other door is open, and that door is closed before I walk over and open my door, the alarm goes off.
Bugger. While I don't sit right next to the alarm like some of my unfortunate coworkers, I sit close enough to hear it when it goes off. (That sucker is loud.) And I'm told there's nothing we can do about this problem. This seems like poor design; while it would come up only rarely in, say, your house with a handful of occupants, with close to 100 people and the restrooms and smoking area on the other side of those doors, there's a lot of traffic.
(Of course, we could address the problem informally, rather than with the alarm company -- but we have to be motivated. A door-cam would do it, but I don't care that much.)
The doors from our space to the hall are connected to an alarm system. To enter through one of those doors you have to swipe a card and enter a code; to leave through one of those doors you have to push a button, which (we were told) disables the alarm for 60 seconds. 60 seconds ought to be long enough for anyone to walk the 10 feet to the door and get out, so I've been puzzled by the frequency with which the alarm goes off. We're all smart people -- are we really that bad about remembering to hit the button?
This afternoon I hit the button, saw the indicator light that said I'd connected, opened the door -- and set off the alarm. That's when I learned that closing a door resets the alarm; it's not really a 60-second window. So if I hit the button while the other door is open, and that door is closed before I walk over and open my door, the alarm goes off.
Bugger. While I don't sit right next to the alarm like some of my unfortunate coworkers, I sit close enough to hear it when it goes off. (That sucker is loud.) And I'm told there's nothing we can do about this problem. This seems like poor design; while it would come up only rarely in, say, your house with a handful of occupants, with close to 100 people and the restrooms and smoking area on the other side of those doors, there's a lot of traffic.
(Of course, we could address the problem informally, rather than with the alarm company -- but we have to be motivated. A door-cam would do it, but I don't care that much.)

no subject
no subject
The alarm was previously disabled, a state with which everyone local was happy. Then the overlords came to audit us, and we had to turn it on.
no subject
no subject
no subject
It's always better for security systems to help people comply and also meet the goal of protecting physical and intellectual assets, rather than pissing off the employees into subverting, disabling, or going around the systems and leaving a risk.
My philosophy, clearly not echoed here, is that if a security system is a bugger to deal with, it's not right -- if there isn't a technology sufficient to meet the need, then the security system shouldn't make rules they can't enforce. If it's that critical to have that door guarded, and they can't do that without an alarm going off frequently and loudly enough to disturb, annoy, and lower the productivity of the people in the area, then put an effing human being there.
This is bad policy, bad security, and bad relationships with an acquisition. As Duncan would say, "It sucks."
no subject
So, dike-cutters, and don't tell anyone it was you. :-)
no subject
I'll bet wiring the two doors separately (two alarms instead of one) would be cheaper. Probably easier than tying two doors to one alarm was, for that matter.
change
no subject
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_id=9735&p_table=STANDARDS
might be one place to start reading.
It would probably be a lot cheaper for your overlords to rewire the doors to work properly than to provide earplugs and regular hearing tests for the people who sit right next to the alarms. :-)
You should also point out that because of the regular false alarms, everyone has become accustomed to ignoring the alarms. ("false alarm immunity")
no subject
no subject
no subject
Re: change
no subject
no subject
no subject
Y'know, coming from almost anyone else, I would have expected this note to be about an equal-opportunity-employment complaint. (My mother works in the legal department of a big company, so I hear about a fair number of these.)
But yes -- idiotic design. I can't stand people who design security policies who don't actually understand security...
no subject
:-) Yeah, it was a little geeky, but it's a precise and concise description of the nature of the problem.
I'm reminded of the time a coworker commented that he'd seen a bus crash -- by which he didn't mean "mass of twisted metal" but, rather, that the automated doors (or maybe it was the programmed signs) were having problems and had to be rebooted. I seem to remember the driver turning the bus off and back on again to fix the problem.