Collectively, this profession of ours is filled with a host of individuals from wide-ranging backgrounds, many of whom could certainly give Government security agencies an excellent run for their money when it comes to operational experience.
The security profession can certainly 'see off' the UK's police forces, who seem a touch more concerned with enforcing political correctness than addressing issues that affect the majority. Issues such as violent crime, burglary and the myriad effects of drug abuse.
It's extraordinary that the Government's recent paper 'Criminal justice: the way ahead' had to be published as a reminder of the value of intelligence-led policing. A key issue in the years ahead will be the willingness of the police to share information on a formal basis, as opposed to hiding behind the Data Protection Act. As it stands, the Crime and Disorder Act seems to count for nothing when it comes to the exchange of information.
Let's not forget that security is also one of the lowest paid sectors, particularly when it comes down to the manned guarding function.
How can the industry respond to such dilemmas, and the crossroads that it faces? To answer these particular questions, we need to look at some of the 'threats' in general terms.
The major threats
Rich pickings are available from business – in terms of Government and competitive information gathering, theft by dishonest staff, deliberate damage to equipment by people bearing grudges and, of course, fraud. The exploitation of information for personal gain is also a common thread.
More and more, it seems, the activities of so-called 'pressure groups' are beginning to verge on terrorism – if they feel they are not able to air their views (and be listened to) democratically, violence is the next option. Some even threaten the survival of legitimate commercial enterprises. One only has to look at the campaign waged against Huntingdon Life Sciences that's been extensively reported in the pages of SMT. In addition, the hydra of Irish Republican terrorism is here to stay.
Crime against both the individual and physical property is high on the political agenda, but community initiatives like the ubiquitous Neighbourhood Watch schemes are poorly co-ordinated by the police. Some of these schemes have even been undermined by the police, and are now non-existent. This in spite of the fact that local communities are the police's greatest allies and intelligence asset.
And what of our hospitals? They are effectively supermarkets without checkouts, hotbeds for opportunist criminals. Centres of aggression and anti-social behaviour. The police, though, are nowhere to be seen.
What is security?
Ultimately, security protects. In its briefest definition – always the best kind – protective security is the defensive system designed to guard people, information, equipment, facilities and activities against deliberate and/or accidental unauthorised loss and disclosure, damage to reputation and avoidable injury and fatality.
There is no such thing as pure security (in other words impenetrable defences). If the would-be villain is determined enough, they will ultimately achieve their objective.
If they are to be trusted, manned guarding contractors must make every effort to retain their employees – as virtually every other type of responsible employer would do – by way of constant career training and performance reviews. That’s nothing less than
The aim of protective security, then, is to create as many real and imagined barriers as possible. Barriers that are mutually supportive to eachother. This classic line of defence is known as 'Defence in Depth'. The measures are arranged in depth outward so that, if one barrier were to fail, others can absorb the impact or deflect the attempt at infiltration. Concentrating and centralising sensitive materials in any organisation reduces the necessary security resources.
There is nothing new or revolutionary about 'Defence in Depth'. It must be mentioned as a fundamental tenet of security, yet even some security professionals regard it as a thoroughly complex issue. It isn't.
So how is security reacting to the latest developments? Let's look first at the world of corporate security. For those organisations that boast security practitioners, either directly employed or as consultants, they are privy to a 'flying start', and are generally doing a good job when it comes to raising the status of the profession. At last, it's good to see employers demanding decent academic qualifications.
In much the same way that the accountant advises on financial affairs, only the security practitioner should offer risk management advice while promoting security 'awareness'.
That said, there is still a perception that the security sector is a natural home for those with 'first careers' in the services and the police. Put simply, that is no longer the case. As far as I'm aware, commanding a tank or detecting crime are not necessarily automatic qualifications for a career in security management.
Virtually every other business discipline requires academic qualifications. The more senior the appointment, the more stringent the entrance requirements. Why, then, does the security profession believe itself to be different? With such a history, and the rejection of individuals who have security experience, it's little wonder that there's sometimes a credibility gap overshadowing the capabilities of corporate security professionals.
However, the times they are a-changing. As one influential practitioner has said: "The days of members of the UK's police forces moving automatically into our profession are over." The services and the police have organisations which fit neatly into commercial security management, but their skills remain largely unrecognised. It's therefore fortunate that the Institute of Security has emerged, with its membership graded by qualifications and experience. This should help in kick-starting an improvement in security professionals' status.
We have to remember that the Institute of Security is just one of a proliferation of security associations, each with its own agenda and constitution. The Home Office must surely be grateful for this 'divide and rule'. The current scenario is also counter-productive in terms of achieving a common security standard. Some associations seem to expend considerable efforts to ensure that someone of note – usually an ex-police officer – is on the books.
The trouble is that not all associations can be members of the Joint Security Industry Council. If the security profession truly wishes to develop, there ought to be one voice representing the whole industry.
One all-too-apparent weakness in the corporate sector is the lack of young graduates selecting security as a career. Institutions like the Scarman Centre at the University of Leicester should be working in schools and colleges to attract 'first career' students into the profession. It's also a great shame that the Scarman Centre appears not to offer credits for academic courses. This was certainly the case last year, when I made enquiries about upgrading my academic qualifications.
Unfortunately, security is still viewed by many clients as an expensive investment, not a protective screen. As far as I'm aware, the Institute of Directors (IoD) and few – if any – national, regional and local business links have security advisers on their books. When was the last time the IoD invited a security practitioner to speak at one of its conferences?
The security companies are in an ideal position to talent-spot the managers of the future, and should be developing career planning strategies accordant with that goal. Not at the expense of their clients, but as part of their own investment in profession
The security companies
What about the security companies out there, the 'foot soldiers' of our industry? A huge opportunity beckons, but are they prepared? Harking back once again to 'Criminal justice: the way ahead', the present Government foresees a wider role for security officers, almost as a close ally of the police.
As ever, the police remain unconvinced. While the Police Federation may not want 'civilians masquerading as police officers on the beat', it has singularly failed to acknowledge that security officers have already taken on the protection of vast areas of the country, simply because the police are either unwilling or unable to do so – unless, of course, there is a price attached.
A weakness in the Government's proposals is not to give security officers additional legal powers. The answer may well lie with the creation of 'special-to-role' police forces for hospitals and other public concerns.
In my experience, security company management sometimes appears too self-centred to worry about their performance.
Recently, two of the major security players merged but, as a client, I have yet to receive formal notification that it's happened, or details of the structure of the new organisation. The contract goalposts have been moved, but I have not been warned about the 'fallout'. In such a situation, how can any client hope to plan for the new organisation? What sort of a message does this send out? Inefficiency, forgetfulness, a 'don't care' approach that is someone else's problem?
Living up to expectations
It seems to me that, while security officers generally carry out their duties in a conscientious manner, their management teams are not similarly committed to providing a quality service. Too often, security companies fail to deliver once the contract has been awarded. It does seem that most walk away from the client, failing to live up to the expectations they have sold. Equally, clients could be accused of not insisting on adherence to the terms of a given contract.
If security companies are serious about regaining lost credibility, they really do have to change their attitudes, and import a far more professional security regime. Most managers in security companies are accountants, general managers or pure salespeople. It's not often that a client will encounter professional security managers, or indeed corporate security managers who have moved into the security company stream.
Given that this is the case, how on earth do security companies know how corporate security is developing – and then adjust their contract strategies accordingly? 'Criminal justice: the way ahead' means that security companies have a massive nettle to grasp. Only those with forethought and decent enough planning will succeed. Years of historical damage caused by low pay, low investment, poor screening and ineffective management will have to be overcome.
In a world of intense national and environmental pressures our defensive mechanisms against would-be criminals need to be ever-more sophisticated.
That will only be realised by effective security management, careful planning and cost-effective, protective security measures. It's well worth bearing in mind that security is not as expensive as insecurity.
Source
SMT
