Now grow at your own pace

Hot off the press comes some very interesting news that may affect a fair slice of our industry … NACOSS has closed the door to all non-quality assured installers.

As from October 1, any company wishing to enroll with NACOSS must have an ISO 9000 quality management system (QM) in place before acceptance. Companies may still apply and NACOSS will help them through the QM scheme; the difference is that they will not be enrolled until quality management has been achieved. Also companies already enrolled but not yet QM will still be allowed the normal two years to achieve it.

However, as one door closes another door opens and I believe the new ICON scheme is a very acceptable alternative route to NACOSS. Along with the ISI (the inspectorate for manned guarding), NACOSS and ICON will be overseen by the new NSI (National Security Inspectorate) and yet each will retain its own identity.

Just a little misunderstood
Many people have got the wrong impression of the ICON scheme and I have heard it referred to as "some competition for the SSAIB" and as "the poor man's NACOSS".

The ICON scheme was never aimed to be either of those, the idea was to give an opening for companies to become recognised quickly and then to be able to gain the QM status in their own time. After that the change to NACOSS (if desired) would be quick and easy. On the other hand if they wish to stay with ICON they can stay till doomsday without pressure to move up.

Perhaps it is time to have a look at not just ICON, but the position of all the inspectorates, particularly in view of the fact that UKAS accreditation has become a major factor ... and on top of that it looks like government licensing will be with us all too soon.

Let's face facts: over the last few years the SSAIB has knocked quite a few holes in the NACOSS castle and this has provoked some reaction from the residents, so what we are seeing is the first stage in a strengthening move in the face of an onslaught of competition from the SSAIB.

For as long as the industry can remember, NACOSS (and the former NSCIA) has enjoyed the privilege of exclusive recognition from the insurance companies, and the latest moves are the first stage in the fight back to retain that position.

Many years ago a set of requirements was laid down for a company to conform to in order to get insurance recognition and recommendation. NACOSS has always actively sought out the companies that conformed to those requirements and rejected the rest; this has lead to accusations of arrogance and running a "big boys" club.

Even I felt offended
The problem is that the companies that were rejected as unable to meet the criteria felt offended (myself included in the early days) and the accusations started flying. Over recent years the SSAIB has come along and presented a new friendly face, which gathered a lot of support from the installers but very limited support from the insurance companies. So what are these magical standards that are required by the insurance companies?

The first requirement oddly enough was not the quality of installation but that a company should be able to fulfil its contractual obligations. Therefore ,NACOSS has always reviewed an applicant company's accounts.

This was not just a case of looking to see how much they had in the bank, (to pay the NACOSS bills – as has often been proclaimed by those rejected by the NACOSS regime), it was more a case of looking to see if the company was managed on professional and good sound business lines. In other words will the company be here this time next year to service your alarm?

This is not an about-turn
In recent years we have seen the upsurge in the "popularity" of the ISO 9000 Quality Management Systems. This was seen as yet another way (and in fact a very refined way) of proving management commitment and competence so the insurance companies started asking for it and NACOSS hopped on the bandwagon and made QM a requirement.

… And before you all start writing in to remind me of how I have been one of the leading opponents of ISO 9000, let me say that at this stage I am looking from the point of view of the insurance companies, not my own views. Those will come next month when I have a look at the new ISO 9001/2000 scheme and its implications to you the installer.

There was also the factor of offering 24-hour callout and being available within four hours in emergency as required by the police and the British Standard. It was therefore agreed that a company should have a minimum of two full-time engineers, which had the effect of cutting out a whole raft of small one-man businesses.

Yet again there was the factor of expertise, a dividing line had to be drawn somewhere so the requirement to have fitted a minimum of 50 systems and have two years in business was introduced. Then they had to carry reasonable stock levels – when you think about it there are a lot of factors to take into consideration.

Another big factor as far as the insurance companies were concerned was the character of the people running the installation companies, these people had to be good honest upright citizens without a stain on their characters.

Over the past few years the SSAIB has knocked quite a few holes in the NACOSS castle and this has provoked some reaction from the residents

Spare us the lunatic fringe
To this end a NACOSS code of practice on vetting was written and administered with a large slice of enthusiasm by the inspectors. Now here we are today and ACPO have adopted a similar stance with the recently published BS 7858 vetting standard that has now superseded the NACOSS code of practice.

At the end of the day, we all have to agree that we need to keep certain disreputable elements of the public out of our trade … but the problem has always been how to do it without upsetting the politically correct lunatic fringe who are constantly telling us what we can or can't do.

Now there has been a suggestion in the government white paper on the security industry that the statute of limitations (Rehabilitation of Offenders Act) should not apply to people within the security industry. We may have come a step nearer to reaching what we, the inspectorates, and the insurance companies all want – an industry free of undesirables.

After we have sorted that lot out we then have to fit to a recognised standard – BS4737.

The more you look at it the more you realise that in order to meet all the above requirements you have literally to exclude 90 per cent of the small companies trading in the industry. So, on behalf of the insurance companies, that is just what NACOSS (and the NSCIA before it) did and got the "bad" reputation because of it.

Now perhaps you will begin to see (as I did when I joined the NSI team) why the insurance companies have supported NACOSS unreservedly and in the face of opposition from the rejected 90 per cent for all these years. But things and times change including the inspectorates.

The SSAIB has done a wonderful job in giving the smaller companies their first taste of the world of inspectorates and police recognition. It has also given a lot of companies a great deal of help in getting their act together with company management and organisation. (There is nothing finer than to have your work inspected by an outsider. It points out your faults and shortcomings so you can correct them). But therein may also lie the root of the problem. Could it be that because the SSAIB allows very small companies to enroll – often with only limited experience – the insurance companies are still tending to shy away from them because, as a rule of thumb, the higher the risk, the more they demand NACOSS.

Think of it this way: The insurance companies would prefer a larger company – even if the engineers are sometimes second rate – because they can count on a reasonable response.

Customers left with a substitute
The local guy down the road may be an excellent installer and troubleshooter but if he is on holiday or sick, then he cannot respond … or he has to send in a substitute.

That is possibly where the insurance companies tend to get cold feet. They could ask: Who is he? Has he been vetted? Has he any experience? Does he know the system … or is he going to bodge the job until the real guy is back again (and possibly leave the property at risk)?

Perhaps you now begin to see why the insurance companies (although they have relaxed a lot in recent years) still stick out for a NACOSS company when the chips are down. Until the SSAIB starts sorting out the men from the boys among their own flock by creating different levels of enrolment I believe NACOSS will still enjoy the insurance support for the foreseeable future, even after the SSAIB gets UKAS accreditation.

Now if we throw the final spanner in the works and add the recent upsurge in 'sales only' companies desiring recognition by both NACOSS and the SSAIB, the insurance companies now have a colossal problem: How do they know which company is a 'sales only' company that contracts its systems out to another installer and which has the manpower and the on-board expertise to deliver the goods?

NACOSS has seen these industry changes and is reacting to them. The first reaction is to tighten the NACOSS requirements and that means excluding (as they always have done) the 'sales only' companies, and in doing so maintain the insurance confidence.

But before that could happen, normal companies wanting to enroll needed a point of entry, so ICON had to be set up and launched and the new overall body (The National Security Inspectorate) introduced to oversee the whole issue. The result is that today we have a much more level playing field, no longer are the small companies out in the cold just because they are small … they even have a choice; and to keep everyone on their toes there is even competition among the inspectorates.

For the very small company, and even for those new to the industry, there is an opportunity to join ICON or the SSAIB. All they have to do is to prove they have the minimum levels of expertise in both installation and management. There are differences, of course, in the ways of assessing those skills. ICON has adopted many of the ways of NACOSS because ICON is now, of course, the new gateway to NACOSS.

No one is 'pushed' towards QM
For the more experienced company, there is the added option of staying with the SSAIB or ICON, and gaining the ISO9000 quality management system in their own time, but only if they wish. At this stage (as I stated earlier) no one is going to push them towards QM if they don't want to go. The final choice is to, once again, stay with the SSAIB or go to NACOSS.

How do insurers know which company is a ‘sales only’ that contracts its systems out to another installer?

The normal route to NACOSS recognition will now be to go to ICON first. Then you can put your quality management system into place as you go along – at your own pace and with no time limits to bind you. You can, of course, still go direct to NACOSS but you will need to have an acceptable QM system in place before acceptance.

Times have certainly changed over the last few years. Once we had NACOSS and insurance recognition in a very high position and nothing else, the jump from being a run-of-the-mill installer to NACOSS accreditation was an awesome step to take.

But now life is so much easier. Your company can now grow and climb the inspectorate ladder in easy stages at its own pace, and you can even decide at what level you wish to stop and run your company just as you wish to run it, Provided it complies with the standards of course.

Come up and see me
On a different note, part of my new job is to get out and about talking to the members of our trade so if you want to come along and say hello, or to tell me how wrong I am, or to have a general discussion on your problems (or mine) and the state of the industry in general, get out your diary. Here is a "gig guide" of where I can be found, weather permitting!

October 24 &25 – SITO Surgery, Travel Inn Cheadle, Manchester.

November 8 – CONSEC 2001 for the ACS at the Met Police social club, Bushey, Herts.

November 14 & 15 – SITO Surgery, Master Brewer Hotel, Hillingdon.

November 21 & 22 – SITO Surgery at Newcastle (address unknown) November 28 – West Yorks Security Association, Leeds.

December 5 – SITO Surgery, Travel Lodge, Pontefract.

At the SITO surgeries I will be one small part of a team answering questions on all aspects of the industry and training. More details from Louise Powell at SITO HQ. 01905 20004.

Carry On Sniffing
We all have our embrassing moments ... and here's one of mine.

Every year on the run-up to Christmas my wife drags me to Leeds shopping. Every year it's the same story; we visit a well-known store and head straight for the perfume department to buy the latest perfumes for our two daughters.

My wife has to try every tester on the counter so after the first ten minutes of choking and sneezing I start looking for an escape route. However, my fate is sealed. When she runs out of exposed flesh to anoint on her own body she starts on mine. After an hour or so I smell like a working girls parlour.

After a particularly heavy perfume testing session a couple of years ago we were walking back to the train when she decided to visit the Ladies. I was loaded down with bags so she hung her handbag round my neck and left me in the middle of the precinct.

I heard a voice :"Oooh" it said, "Somebody smells nice" and I was mortified to find that I was the centre of attention for two gays that looked like they'd come from a Carry On film. They were wearing purple and green trousers, frilly shirts, carrying handbags and more make-up than pantomime dames. And one of them must have been at least 60. They walked around me sniffing and guessing with uncanny accuracy the names of the perfumes I had been doused with. They were just getting round to how the handbag failed to match my jeans when my wife returned.

Far from rescuing me she embroiled herself in a long conversation about perfumes and by now they were all sniffing various parts of each other and me and I felt that every pair of eyes in Leeds was turned in my direction.