SLAs and KPIs: the guarantors

Imagine a private security industry that is self-regulating... Not via the Home Office's very own Security Industry Authority (SIA), nor the British Security Industry Association or the National Security Inspectorate's ISI division (to name but a few). Instead, an industry regulated by way of an agreed set of terms laid down at the outset – and for the entire duration – of a contractual agreement.

"That has been tried before" I hear you say. Only a few months ago, "A Contract of Substance" – an initiative spearheaded by The Security Watchdog, as well as several clients and contractors – collapsed. Arguably, the industry lost out on a programme of work that had a good chance of succeeding where others before it had failed.

Then there's the Working Time Directive. How many companies actually apply the terms and conditions of the Directive in the spirit in which the legislation is intended? Sadly, it's a truism that many security companies will get away with not applying the Directive's terms wherever and whenever they can. Most are ashamed to say that they're ill-equipped to apply the Directive to its fullest extent, and then lay the blame at the door of the purchaser.

In truth, the blame actually lies with the service provider, whose management only recognise and readily acknowledge the need for growth and increased market share.

Driven by profit, not quality
The fact is that the private security industry is driven by profit – and profit alone. Not quality of service delivery. Nor officer welfare.

There are those who would say: "What's wrong with that? Being in business is about making money". Surely, though, that cannot be right if this industry is lying to itself by merely paying lip service to industry regulation, standards and the Working Time Directive?

The industry is crying out for regulation, and it's very much a positive that the SIA is now in place to administer the terms and conditions of the Private Security Industry Act 2001.

Why, though, can't the security companies do something in the interim period between now and when licensing kicks-in to show that they mean business?

Of late, professional security buyers have become very imaginative in bringing together set criteria when selecting service providers by way of a formal tendering process. They usually insist on membership of one or more of the trade organisations already mentioned. Together with the attainment of BS 7858, BS 7499 and ISO 9002, that goes some way towards ensuring a quality service.

That said, how many buyers actually look at the current performance of security companies? Not at their financial performance, or which trade body they happen to belong to, but their actual on-site performance? Almost all buyers ask for references, but how can you judge good performance?

SLAs and KPIs: the essentials
In recent years, performance management by way of Service Level Agreements (SLAs) and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) has become a crucial aspect of many organisations' activities. Such tactics, however, are not so prevalent in the security sector. SLAs help to clarify each party's goals, ensuring that agreed service standards are met and payments made on time. Far be it from me to tell others how to apply SLAs to their own business, but I would say the benefits of doing so are numerous.

If you do decide to go down this route, it's important to clearly define the service expected. Without clarity, each party may have different ideas and not discover this to be the case until it's too late. The more detailed the objectives, the less risk of misunderstanding and unfulfilled expectations.

For SLAs to truly work, there are two essential rules to be observed. First, any objectives must be achievable and, second, they must be measurable by way of KPIs reviewed on a regular basis.

From the client's perspective, KPIs within the SLA allow monitoring of performance based on real actions – and thus the rapid detection of trends. They also enable the client to re-define SLAs on the basis of actual performance. There'll be a reduction in paperwork, administration and manpower, too.

From the contractor's point of view, this set-up allows management of a given contract on the basis of hard facts and direct objective measurement of the impact on KPIs.

Regular meetings are very much the norm for any creditable security service providers who take their business seriously. Typically, such meetings are held on a monthly basis and documented by way of some form of customer visit report – so why not set some time aside for laying out and agreeing objectives for the terms of a Service Level Agreement, and then include the measurement of the KPIs on a monthly basis? You will be amazed at how little time it takes... and at the immediate improvements that will result.

Regulation... and tighter controls
The future of the security industry – or more specifically the manned guarding sector – is in the hands of the SIA. Licensing of the industry through comprehensive vetting and registration should pave the way for legitimate companies and well-trained officers, but this in itself will not go far enough.

For their part, buyers will still be seeking companies who (on the outside) appear to conform, have all the right credentials at the foot of their letterhead and who enjoy a significant market share. On the inside, such companies will have no formal credentials from those who matter most – the clients.

It cannot be denied that security companies in the private sector have a responsibility to adhere to the terms and conditions of regulation and legislation. Really and truthfully, though, it's procurement managers, security managers and facilities specialists – the 'buyers' in the sector – who have the power to make a difference to the industry and, ultimately, the security service they receive.