It sounds like something out of the future, but monitoring employees in real-time is possible and practical for those working alone. Many companies across various industries implement such systems as a way to monitor those who may spend extensive amounts of time on their own in isolated work environments, from field technicians to night security guards. It’s not at all about creepy surveillance but ensuring that someone is aware if something goes wrong.
The Technology Behind Monitoring Systems
Essentially, monitoring works through a two-way system of check-ins and GPS tracking alongside an instant communication response should there be a trigger to suggest that something has gone wrong. Most systems use apps on smartphones or dedicated devices handheld by employees throughout their shifts. The systems continually report location and status back to a central monitoring or designated contact for safety.
Most systems do not actively monitor human beings. They operate by measures that trigger someone else’s awareness. For example, if a scheduled check-in does not occur, if there is a detected fall or impact, or if the employee manually initiates help, the system immediately follows through with alerts. Companies that protect staff working alone rely on this trigger-response function, so there is essentially no delay from independent operation to ideally, emergency response should something happen.
And monitoring does not mean someone’s watching every move. Employees still maintain independence while the system operates quietly in the background until certain conditions inherently indicate trouble.
What Triggers Suggest Something’s Wrong
Different trigger systems monitor employees working alone to assess if something’s wrong. The most common trigger is check-ins at timed intervals, where employees must confirm their safety at the end of, for example, every hour worked or every couple of hours worked (depending on the type of work being performed). If a scheduled check-in fails to occur after a set amount of time, an emergency protocol is implemented and alerted to managers or emergency contacts.
Another kind of trigger system relies on motion. Modern systems can detect when someone has fallen, been still for a definitive amount of time, or reported impact (car accident, for example). They can also utilize absence of movement, an acknowledgment that a few minutes of limited movement has now turned into an unanswered ongoing issue.
Manual panic buttons are also available so that someone can call for help without necessarily being able to do so via cellphone if their situation deems it inappropriate at that time. The push of a button not only alerts responders but gives them automatic access to the employee’s location and the fact that something is wrong. This is especially critical for situations in which someone may not have access to calling someone for help due to immediate harm or medical situations.
The Tiered Alert Response
Finally, when something does go wrong, there needs to be an appropriate response. Triggered alerts create a tiered response based on severity and location. The first response usually goes to the employee’s immediate supervisor or safety manager. These responders receive location data, type of alert initiated, and access to two-way communication if the employee can answer.
If the alert fails to be acknowledged by the first responder within a set amount of time, three minutes at most, the system escalates automatically to secondary responders. These may be other managers, on-site security, or emergency services, depending on how the company sets the response up.
Most importantly, it’s the location precision that’s valuable. GPS tracking allows responders to know exactly where an employee is, whether they are in an off-site field location, at a client’s home, or lost somewhere within the confines of a building. This saves time from colleagues who might otherwise have had to guess where employees are.
Real-Life Technical Issues
The benefits are numerous; however, actual implementation can pose real-world issues. Most importantly, battery life matters. Any device that transmits location data needs consistency. More often than not, better systems are made with longevity in mind; people shouldn’t be using systems that need recharging halfway through the shift due to power drain from continuous monitoring; however, best-case scenarios require charging at least once every day (some companies offer backup power banks while others allow charging while on breaks).
Next comes connectivity. Often remote systems have spotty access to cellular communications. Some signals for monitoring do not transmit well with weak connectivity. Better systems either enable storage of data and re-transmission when signals return or use satellite systems as backup transmission, albeit at a higher cost.
Finally, dead zones exist regardless of situation: in buildings with stone exteriors or underground settings or essentially anywhere too remote for any signals. This occurs more frequently in companies who work with remote workers requiring more limited formal checking in and buddy systems until the next available safe space offers direct connection to monitoring systems.
Employee Privacy Issues/ Buy-In
Finally, employees sometimes do not always like monitoring systems because they feel it’s invasive or suggests that they should not be trusted. However, as long as data is disclosed regarding what will be monitored and how, for safety instead of productivity tracking, then most systems meet little pushback and essentially come down to employee buy-in.
In fact, most employees who do work alone appreciate a safety net once they know how it works because it provides peace of mind knowing that someone would realize if they missed check-in time or had fallen.
Companies must have policies in place regarding data access, maintenance timeframes and circumstances for use because otherwise it’s just too vague.
The Future of Monitoring Technology
Monitoring systems are only going to get more sophisticated over time. Newer versions have environmental sensors designed to detect gas leaks or temperature problems. Better versions integrate with building processes to see where someone is in conjunction with their environmental status.
Finally, wearable technology is getting smaller; what may have required an entirely separate device can now be integrated into wearable technology such as smartwatches or clipped onto existing work gear. The smaller and less obtrusive it becomes, the more likely people will use the technology correctly throughout their shift.
