In my experience, customer satisfaction generated by enthusiastic, stable members of the security team and responsive – as well as pro-active – management is what makes for a successful outcome, and helps to add the genuine business value which our clients now rightly demand.
The key to achieving that is to cost sensibly, recognise operating limits and be brave enough to decline to perform work for customers who don't share your values or simply will not pay the price. In a nutshell, all guarding companies should have in place a well thought-out strategy for the business, and then must stick to that same strategy.
Legion Security managing director David Evans recently made some powerful points in the pages of SMT ('Absorbing the cost of change', Opinion, SMT, December 2003, pp13-15), while John Legge's article ('Thoughts for the SIA', SMT, February 2004, p37) gets right down to the nuts and bolts of the situation. In a rush towards licensing, industry influencers and lobbyists have ignored a commercial imperative and, having argued a case, we're now faced with the costs of conformance.
However, unlike many other service suppliers we simply cannot shift our costs to the Indian sub-continent, much as I suspect many would love to do so.
Frankly, I remain hugely sceptical that legislative oversight from retired police officers and civil servants satisfies the need. Except in some clearly defined areas, I'm also yet to be convinced that Home Secretary David Blunkett and ACPO's much-vaunted 'extended police family' has any real meaning – or, more importantly, really matters one jot to most of my company's clients. The very people who pay the bills, in other words.
Even the most casual reading of the Security Industry Authority's (SIA) corporate and business plan tells the tale. After ducking the issue for far too long, the Government finally responded to industry pressure for licensing but – and it's an important 'but' – that was all about criminality. Essentially, driving the criminal element out by force of legislation.
What we're now saddled with is some woolly notion of raising industry standards for the public's protection. Removing the criminal element – the original reason for a licensing regime – is included, but almost as an afterthought.
It could be the case that many security companies don't want to be part of the 'extended police family'. It could also be the case that many don't want to be listed as part of the SIA's Approved Contractor Scheme. At this point, I have to state that the very notion of this being compulsory appals me.
What our customers want is certainty of a good service, and the delivery of a good service. That's what will convince them to pay a sensible rate for the task and, at the end of the day, is what will always differentiate the good service providers from the bad. This is best achieved by shrewd commercial purchasing judgement in an unregulated marketplace.
On looking ahead in a rather pessimistic manner, I fully anticipate a significant reduction in available work, shortfalls – for whatever reason – of good, honest folk who want to carry out private sector security work and a significant shrinkage of the UK industry as we know it today.
Of late, I've looked on with increasing amazement at various meeting minutes, proposals and wish lists. In my view, all of them amount to the longest suicide note in history.
I think I'll buy myself a shop instead!
Source
SMT
Postscript
Bob Long, Managing Director, Sector Security Services
