Are contractors lagging behind

We are told that the nation is facing the threat of international terrorism on a scale far greater than any of the troubles witnessed in Northern Ireland. Corporations are having to deal with increasing threats from global terrorists, as well as both national and international pressure groups.

At the same time, communities are fed up with persistent anti-social behaviour by youths – both male and female – and inconsiderate neighbours. The latest theme is to blame the Swinging Sixties for today’s behaviour. However, little mention seems to have been made of the materialistic and easy-going nature of modern day society.

For its part, the police service is finding it increasingly difficult to deploy what are already limited resources in addressing the global threat, the short-term political opinions of the Home Secretary and the demands of the general public to enforce law and order and detect crime.

To meet the shortfall, the police service is now developing its own auxiliary forces (ie income-generating security organisations) under the guise of Police Community Support Officers and Community Wardens, at least some of whom are volunteers, while also developing the idea of accredited manned security companies enjoying a token smattering of legal powers. The question arises as to why the Special Constabulary hasn’t yet been converted into a paid police volunteer reserve force?

Certainly, strong alliances with security organisations remain far too patchy. The police service must appreciate the fact that security functions – in all their various guises – are their closest, largest and most experienced allies. For instance, had those with experience of military intelligence been consulted then, conceivably, the inability to convert information into intelligence on a national basis may have been avoided on more than one occasion.

Security management expertise

As a business discipline in its own right, security is now confronted with considerable opportunities as more corporations and public services demand credible security management expertise.

That truism is amply demonstrated within the National Health Service, whereupon every health body is expected to appoint a dedicated security manager in line with the Counter Fraud and Security Management Service (CFSMS) guidelines (‘Healthier options’, SMT, September 2003, pp23-24). This represents a major change in philosophy from a public service organisation that believed itself immune from local crime and the ills of society.

Interestingly, and no doubt with politics very much in mind, the CFSMS’ initial mission centres on addressing violence and aggression in hospitals. For the time being, theft, tampering with medical equipment and the problems surrounding IT security appear to be well down the list of priorities.

The security technology sector is also responding to the development of cost-effective security equipment – in particular CCTV, access control and identification equipment. In truth, the only security ‘strand’ that seems to be failing to adapt in line with the threat posed to national security – and the subsequent changes in society and associated business opportunities – is that of manned security management.

Only recently, I helped an organisation to select a security company from tenders submitted by both national and regional contractors. The one facet that immediately struck me was how similar the content of the tenders to those I used to deal with back in the mid-1990s. Each still implied: “How many bums can I get on seats, and how might I actually keep them there?”

The contract Terms and Conditions and Key Performance Indicators generally favoured the supplier. For example, Quality Assurance (QA) benefits can be collated into establishing a working relationship with the client, adherence to assignment instructions and sticking rigidly to national standards and QA procedures set by the International Standards Organisation and the like.

Similarly, monitoring would include programmed and unscheduled management visits, progressive training, scheduled meetings, internal reviews and reports. At the very least, clients should be able to expect all of the above as part of a normal contract management service.

Operational performance in view

That said, on a personal level I judge manned security companies not so much on quality and administration but rather on operational performance and knowledge of the sector.

By that I really mean: “Does the presence of security officers on site result in reduced breaches of security?” After all, at the end of the day this is what manned security companies are contracted to do.

In terms of security knowledge, at tender interviews the client question: “What are you going to do for me in relation to protective security?” is usually greeted with silence. So too standard queries on the fundamentals of basic security, such as defence in depth and compartmentalisation.

The major problem is that these days manned security sector management is so business-orientated (rather than being truly security-focused) that company directors aren’t necessarily fully aware of the latest developments in the world of corporate security. And when looking through those aforementioned tenders, most applicants didn’t even refer to the CFSMS, and were in fact totally unaware that the National Association for Healthcare Security (www.nahs.co.uk) currently runs foundation courses for healthcare security officers.

The CFSMS represents a major change in philosophy from a public service organisation that believed itself immune from local crime and the ills of society. The CFSMS’ initial mission centres on addressing violence and aggression in hospitals. For the time being, theft, tampering with medical equipment and the problems surrounding IT security appear to be well down the list of immediate priorities

The CFSMS' document for security managers: a major change in direction for the NHS.

Half of the problem is that most manned security companies are regionally organised and managed by businessmen and women. They ought to be organised by sector (eg campus – health and education, aviation, maritime and retail, etc) and managed by security practitioners with relevant experience in a given field.

Without doubt, the absence of wide-ranging security management expertise throughout the manned security sector, within the Security Industry Authority (SIA) and including the security bodies setting standards – as well as manned security companies who continually compete for business – represents a major weakness in credibility.

Most clients know what they want, but do suppliers really know what those clients desire from their security provision?

Basic training and the client

The United Kingdom is an affluent country, yet the pool of security officers within it remains potentially shallow. That situation could well lead to lower quality security officers entering the ranks, but why should it? Security is a viable outlet for young, fit men in particular, but does the basic training now being demanded by the SIA fit the needs of the average client?

During the course of my chats with security officers of late, the training requirements listed in the SIA’s ‘Specification for Core Competency Training and Qualifications for Security Guarding’ are generally regarded as being too much in too short a space of time, and all-too-often delivered by trainers who have little security management experience. That being the case, they cannot discuss issues of fundamental importance (like those surrounding case histories, for example).

As a client, what I really need are security officers who have sufficient competency that they can be deployed immediately. They must:

• have a total understanding of the national-level threat(s) and risks from crime;
• possess an understanding of the fundamental principles that lie behind protective security, in particular the theory of ‘Defence in Depth’;
• have the ability to patrol effectively – vigilance and observational skills, conflict management ability and the correct use of radios are all core elements here;
• be able to give an accurate description of a car, person or item;
• be able to conduct a simple interview (with the aim of extracting salient information) either during or following an incident;
• have a basic knowledge of the law (including theft, criminal damage, making an arrest, Human Rights and the Data Protection Act);
• respond quickly and competently upon the discovery of a fire, flood, unlocked door or open window;
• be capable of developing proactive relationships with the client and the public.

Familiarisation training is essential

For any individual entering any organisation, the key issue in familiarisation training is to keep it short and simple such that the person concerned isn’t confused and has a decent knowledge on which to build.

Some of the knowledge-based training listed in the ‘Specification for Core Competency Training and Qualifications for Security Guarding’ can be completed subsequent to an individual arriving at his or her place of work as part of the induction process.

Such training might include instruction on:

• the duties to be performed (which will differ from one security contract to the next);
• equipment for use when patrolling, which differs from one company to the next;
• access control and electronic security systems – this must be part of the ‘on the job’ training as client requirements will differ;
• duties to be performed in the gatehouse – not all security officers are employed (or have been employed) in gatehouses, so ‘on the job’ training is going to be essential;
• emergency procedures (‘on the job’ training);
• incident reports and registers (again, ‘on the job’ training).

In conclusion, there’s no doubt that manned security companies are under considerable pressure just now. That pressure will heighten as the SIA’s regulatory regime begins to bite deep, and clients become more and more demanding of their contractors. The weaker companies will go to the wall. However, those who survive should not be too complacent.

Ultimately, manned security companies must get to grips with the culture and philosophy of the various sectors in which their clients operate. The “bums on seats” culture is no longer acceptable. In addition, those same security contractors simply must consider recruiting – at director level – practitioners with proven corporate security experience. Regional directors are (or should be) a thing of the past.

Additionally, the SIA should concentrate on adopting sufficient practical training programmes that will equip a security officer to operate effectively and listen to the client. The SIA should also work closely with SITO, forming the necessary alliances that will lead to sector-specific training. Setting up in some sort of competition will inevitably result in unwanted disagreement.

It’s worth asking the question again: most clients know what they want, but do security suppliers know what the clients want?

Nick van der Bijl BEM is Trust security manager for the North Bristol NHS Trust