TOPCON SURVEY REVEALS IMPACT OF LOST AND STOLEN EQUIPMENT

we recognize that site security has been a real issue facing the industry. To this end, we recently polled 100 land surveyors to understand the precautions they take to keep their tools and equipment safe on site.

The survey revealed the extent of the issue, finding that two out of five surveyors have been affected by lost or stolen equipment, with the average cost of replacing the equipment on a job totalling over £10,000. The biggest impact of lost or stolen equipment was loss of working time and additional cost of replacing equipment. Damage to equipment (56 per cent) and lost or stolen equipment (39 per cent) were also listed as common causes of delays on site.

Recognising the impact of loss or damage to equipment, we looked at the precautions being taken to protect equipment and data. Top of the list was using a locked area to store equipment overnight (85 per cent), but 41 per cent said they take the costly measure of employing extra security staff on site to protect equipment.

Despite security software providing a more cost effective means of protecting equipment, it may be surprising that the majority of those surveyed do not use security software to protect equipment. Fewer than a quarter take the precaution of ID tagging and less than one in five use remote locking. Where it might be commonplace for sites to demand that large machinery is security marked through the CESAR Scheme, the survey showed that this was not the case for security software: 86 per cent reported had never been required to have security software for equipment on site.

Recognising the impact of loss or damage to equipment, we looked at the precautions being taken to protect equipment and data. Top of the list was using a locked area to store equipment overnight (85 per cent), but 41 per cent said they take the costly measure of employing extra security staff on site to protect equipment.

Despite security software providing a more cost effective means of protecting equipment, it may be surprising that the majority of those surveyed do not use security software to protect equipment. Fewer than a quarter take the precaution of ID tagging and less than one in five use remote locking. Where it might be commonplace for sites to demand that large machinery is security marked through the CESAR Scheme, the survey showed that this was not the case for security software: 86 per cent reported had never been required to have security software for equipment on site.

The survey results pose an interesting insight into the thoughts and experiences of surveyors on site when it comes to security. To combat the effects of theft and loss of equipment, widespread adoption of security technology would have a serious deterrent to thieves, decreasing re-sale value for stolen equipment. Taking these kinds of steps to protect equipment would help to limit loss, and help to maximise productivity on site.