Breaking the mould

In adopting what is something of an unconventional approach for an article on security – not to mention any subject – I'd like to begin with a summary. There are two words which will act as the start and end point of my argument concerning the relationship between manned security provider and end user, and I'll try to justify their use as the argument progresses.

The first word is 'conservative' (adj. 1: Favouring the preservation of established customs and values, etc, and opposing innovation). The other is 'innovative' (adj. 2: Something newly introduced, such as a new method or device).

Which of these words do you think more accurately describes the current state of the manned guarding industry?

Expansion of the sector over the last decade or so has its roots in customer outsourcing (itself largely driven by cost-cutting to improve business competitiveness). In adopting this tactic, clients have put the squeeze on private sector contractors who, while enjoying the heady ride of new business, have managed to cut their own throats – or margins – thanks to intense competitive pricing.

Inevitably, attempts to maintain profitability have focused on cost-cutting, primarily targeting the management and administration functions.

The end result is plain for all to see. In many instances, service levels have been reduced to such an extent that the industry has lost a good deal of credibility among its client base for a perceived inability to produce a well-managed and highly effective service. Sadly, such a perception is now being accepted as the norm.

What's life like in the real world of guarding, though? The reality is one of generally competent and adequately trained officers. Officers who work long hours on relatively low wages. Officers who are watched over by (usually) dedicated managers trying to manage too much with too little. The story is known to one and all.

Time to break the mould
The perception of an industry in which poor service delivery supported by dedicated guards is endemic represents a downward spiral which can only be reversed by opting for something new rather than more of the same. In other words, innovation instead of conservatism.

Pressures being brought to bear for a change in this status quo are perhaps greater now than ever before. The effects of regulation – in the form of the Private Security Industry Act – and a reduced working week are looming over us at a time when many of our clients are experiencing the harsh realities of an economic downturn. The manned guarding industry is undoubtedly at a crossroads in its development. A defining moment, with the choice of 'more of the same but cheaper' on the one hand and 'realising profits through impressing customers on the basis of benefits' on the other.

Ultimately, change will be forced on the contracting fraternity by the implementation of the Act – licensing is due to start in 2003 – and the imposition of a 48-hour working week (again in 2003) when the derogation period on the Working Time Directive comes to an end.

History tells us that we shouldn't resist this change, but embrace it and then bend it to suit our own purposes.

The onset of regulation and adherence to the Working Time Directive will bring pressures to bear on employment costs, and the availability of new staff to offset the reduced working week. In turn, this will affect both pay rates and margins

A quick venture into security utopia would suggest that manned guarding companies want to be sensibly profitable on the basis of supplying excellent services to customers who see them as adding value to their business.

For their part, clients will want to be able to carry on with their core business, while the headache of security is taken off their hands by a professional contractor. A company that can advise them on all aspects of protection and risk management, and manage those aspects which they do not provide themselves.

We need to understand that outsourcing has changed from being generally less about cutting costs and more about buying-in expertise. After all, in most organisations the outsourcing of so many of their non-core services means that there is precious little left behind in the way of security expertise. Where it does exist is in those larger organisations where the importance of loss prevention and bottom line protection has caused the Board of Directors to invest in its own security expertise. In other companies, the security management function is often double or triple-'hatted' with other responsibilities (ie contract cleaning and building maintenance).

If we are to improve the manned guarding function, and the relationship between client and end user, there are two fundamental steps that have to be taken.

Step One involves establishing that level of expertise within the security company that enables it to meet the customers' needs when it comes to general advice, and in terms of contract management. This does not mean recruiting more policemen or soldiers – it does mean seeking out those individuals with academic and commercial discipline and a touch of experience. Those who can apply basic principles to a security situation and come up with a solution.

It's also just as important that advice be made available as a proactive service from a company which has a specific kind of relationship with its customers. A relationship whereby the contractor becomes aware of on-site security needs before they become immediately apparent to the client.

The customer's only other option is to engage an independent consultant. This is both expensive and not necessarily effective – often, the consultant will not have a deep enough understanding of the customer's business. That understanding must be there as an essential prerequisite if an effective solution is to be found.

Step Two centres on providing security solutions based on an understanding of a given client's needs, rather than on the services the contractor wants to provide. Such needs can only be assessed following a thorough survey that's based on the client's business. The survey should include all aspects of security, protecting property, people, assets and data. It should identify opportunities for a more cost-effective use of manpower through alternative solutions (eg an increasing use of electronics and multi-skilling across job boundaries where relevant).

Flexibility is what's required. Innovation is based on flexibility of both thought and action. Conservatism stems from rigidity of thought, and a disinclination to accept change.

The perception of an industry in which poor service delivery supported by dedicated guards is endemic represents a downward spiral. One that can only be reversed by opting for something new. We need innovation, not conservatism

Moving towards integration
Several contractors have taken the view that offering customers a choice of contract facilities – including cleaning, electronics and guarding – from within their own stable is a sure-fire route to success. However, this concept does not sit well with outsourcing on which the whole edifice is founded (ie choosing the best company for the job through a formal selection process rather than that which is most convenient or is the cheapest).

Nonetheless, integration is attractive because it does offer a huge bonus to customers – they have less contractors to manage, and therefore more time to concentrate on their own security management concerns.

Perhaps the answer here lies with a mix of managing and providing solutions. In doing so, contractors can then build on highly relevant existing contract management skills by offering the services at which they are indeed expert – and then manage, on behalf of the client, those at which they are not by selecting the best partner for the task. The choice of 'best partner' will vary depending on their own areas of competence when compared with the type and level of performance which they are tasked to provide. In other words, the guarding contractor takes on the responsibility of managing that partner on behalf of the in-house client.

In following this route, it's clear that the guarding company will have to change into a different animal. They then become a professional provider and manager of expert solutions as opposed to a pure supplier. There will be those who say that, in doing so, the security companies would cease to be a security industry company. There is a grain of truth in this, and of course there are many customers for whom the solution will be one that takes account of pure security needs, and pure security needs only.

By mixing the various services, there is the potential to offer long-term cost savings by not compartmentalising all the tasks into separate service providers with rigid and jealously-guarded boundaries. So often the task requirement is for 0.7 or 1.3 of a security officer, or 0.4 of a mail room assistant or 0.8 of a receptionist. By taking a more strategic view of the non-core services, it's possible to offer real long-term cost savings – by reducing manning levels, but not cutting back on either pay or margins. Multi-skilling can also lead to increased staff morale and greatly reduced officer churn.

Responsibilities on the move
We all know that the onset of regulation and adherence to the Working Time Directive will bring huge pressures to bear on employment costs, and indeed the availability of new staff to compensate for the reduced working week. In turn, these pressures will engender pressures of their own – on both pay rates and margins.

In essence, security companies should now be looking to move the responsibility for solving customers' service issues – in the widest sense – from their shareholders to ours. How? By taking a solutions-based approach to security contracts that pays heed to the clients' business needs.

By doing this, contractors can protect and enhance their trading position (by offering long-term cost savings based on a more effective use of manpower), enhance their own reputation and relationship with customers (by way of offering a professional security service founded on real knowledge) and grow their business (by expanding into parallel markets).