Forming a security partnership

Our clients fully understand and support the aims of Security Industry Authority (SIA) regulation and the additional costs it will inevitably bring. They are adopting a common sense approach. In addition, they are hoping regulation will realise an improvement to current security industry standards – and security officers in particular – which in the long run will benefit their business.

One of the SIA’s Mission Statements is, of course, to allow licensed officers and approved contractors to offer their services as part of the extended police family. We already work closely with the police service, and would be interested in taking our involvement further.

What I think would be wrong is security contractors ‘taking over the streets’. What they should be doing is filling in the defined gaps in policing by performing strictly low level tasks (ie acting as professional witnesses).

In truth, the police service needs to drive forward the concept of a wider policing family but it’s where they draw the line – and thus indicate where policing stops and private sector security provision starts – that is absolutely critical.

Cost will always preclude security officers from attaining the same standards as the police and, therefore, we should never confuse the capabilities of both groups. The police need help, but they should be the ones directing that help and remain in control of it.

Harnessing our knowledge

By their very nature, Police Community Support Officers would appear to be a sub-standard solution to the public desire for an increased uniformed presence. There are many controls on what they can and cannot do.

Ultimately, if they are not trained to the same level as a full-time police officer – and they are not – then there’s no accountability. Given the number of skilled security practitioners in this country, it beggars belief as to why their knowledge has not been harnessed long before the SIA was first mentioned. This is where the Government and the police must concentrate their efforts.

The essence of any respected and trusted guarding provider is that the contractor will have a major input to a project. Many providers simply put an officer in a uniform at the client’s facility and do little or nothing to help the end user form their security strategy, or to understand it. Several clients have resorted to providing the management element themselves, simply using security providers as a type of recruiting agency to supply uniformed security officers.

That’s fine if all you want is a recruiting agency, but if you are looking for a security provider who can be an effective partner and adviser on security matters then the provider has to offer a whole lot more. Certainly a whole lot more than has been dished out in the past.

However, that desire isn’t always easy to fulfill now that many end user organisations are pursuing the facilities management company route. If we are only providing security officers to a client, these days it’s highly likely we will be speaking with a facilities management company rather than the end user. This clearly creates a gap between the person responsible for security and the security provider itself, which causes delays and limits our ability to offer a rounded and customer-based solution.

Security and the facilities equation

Of all the services that are ‘bundled’ under facilities management, end users should think very carefully before making security one of them. It serves to add another dimension to the procurement chain, and merely confuses the issue. The only argument for adopting the facilities-based approach to security provision is to obtain cheaper costs, but how is that achieved in the real world? Placing security under the ‘charge’ of facilities adds an additional margin to the initial equation, but by force of economies of scale still manages to reduce the cost! Or does it simply remove some of the quality?

If the only benefit to be derived is cost reduction, what is that saying about the importance being placed on the security of our assets, people and information?

We do not subscribe to the edict: “We have many contracts in this area, and so we have a pool of personnel that we can use to support the client should there be any last minute drop-outs”. This mysterious ‘pool’ of ever-ready staff doesn’t really exist. They are security officers being dragged in on their days off, or direct from another clients site. By design, we do not work with any clients who would allow or want our officers to be deployed as short term cover on another client’s site.

The majority of our contracts are set up under the Terms and Conditions laid down by the Working Time Directive. We train our officers for a specific site and they will remain there. We want them to take ownership of ‘their’ contract, and to be seen and recognised as part of the client operation. That ties in with a policy of slow, sustained growth whereby we only involve the company with ‘safe’ contracts.

How does this square with the need for defined career progression, you might ask? We have taken a lead on one of our contracts where the officers can gain promotion within the client company. Career progression is not just about money. It is also about job satisfaction and advancement as an individual.

Our security officers are the guardians of our clients’ security strategies and, as such, must understand the bigger picture so they can adapt and work towards it rather than – as is all-too-often the case – simply being someone standing at a gate checking passes because they have been told to without understanding why.

Pilgrims has never been taken to an employment tribunal, our staff turnover is in single figures and we have achieved several back-to-back zero non-compliance ISO 9000 audits. This all adds to staff satisfaction and self respect and, in turn, leads to the provision of a much higher quality service to our clients.

Moving with the times

Security companies and security officers must move with the times. That comment is also true of the client base. All of the elements must be understood, including the security technology on site, such that the client may reap the maximum benefits from what can be the considerable cost of protection.

The blame for many security regimes ‘going wrong’ lies with installers. If a client wants cameras the installer will provide them, but do they ever ask the end user what they are trying to achieve by having them there in the first place? Do they have the expertise to advise the client what they want or need?

By its very nature, security is a complete package of many elements to achieve an overall aim. It does not make sense to farm each element out for the lowest cost and then expect them all to mesh together when needed. It will not happen.

Security contracts could certainly be tightened if the insurance community were to insist that end users will only receive cover if they deploy a contractor registered under the Approved Contractor Scheme.

The importance of a quality service should never be underestimated, and it would appear the insurers can play a much greater part in helping to deliver that quality.