Should security companies servicing clients in the private sector operate a branch network, or instead choose a centralised support service? Which is better for the client base the company serves? In delivering a truly holistic security package for VSG Security's customers, Bill Muskin explains why he's yet to be convinced that branch networks are the way forward.
The decision as to whether a manned security contractor should operate a branch network or instigate a centralised support service isn't one made on commercial grounds, as both ways of working – potentially, at least – require the same level of funding.

A branch structure needs significant investment in facilities and overheads, whereas centralised operations offer the flexibility and opportunity to invest more in both IT systems and field-based managers.

Indeed, the latter concept directly supports the client base at site level, reducing operational managers' portfolios and enabling a greater quality of service delivery and focus.

So how do security companies manage to deliver a unified service throughout the country via a branch network? The simple answer is that they can't. It's a 'given' that any branch office is only as good as the manager in situ (not to mention the constraints placed around him or her by the company as a whole).

Many large businesses set high standards from their corporate Head Office, but how many of them are confident that these standards are being maintained at branch level? And how are the managers responsible for service delivery able to tell that everything is (or appears to be) in place?

Every branch represents a profit and loss centre, and all are returning their monthly figures to demonstrate their success or failure. It's no wonder, then, that the managers – often under immense pressure – begin to cut corners. I've been witness to situations whereupon officers are sent out into the wide world untrained, not vetted and given second hand uniforms just so that they can fill a space on a temporary guarding assignment. This isn't fiction, let me tell you. Even during the past 12 months, contracts that we have taken on where staff have been transferred under TUPE have exhibited such standards.

Is this all a bad dream? No. Sadly, it's very much the truth. Many company directors would do well to take stock of their branch performance, not by reviewing management accounts but rather by getting their hands a little dirty in order to ascertain exactly how their firms are being run.

For my part, I'm a great believer in central control whereby all decisions are made and national standards set from one base point. Those standards can then be rolled out via geographically-placed operational management teams who have no profit and loss responsibility. Instead, they enjoy a true focus on service delivery. These managers go out in the morning and drive to their first assignment of the day. They don't nestle in the office for a coffee and a chat before deciding that they should service the officers and customers on the ground!

Such a centralised method of service delivery enables all data to be collated, monitored and disseminated on a daily basis such that senior management might be placed in touch with what's going on at all locations.

Acting on information received
As a director of the company, it's vitally important that you're fully aware of what's going on around you, and can act promptly on every hour that's lost and incident that occurs as and when they happen. These innovations actively drive very accurate management information from which improvements can be made and quality information supplied to deliver sound decision-making procedures.

In real terms, this methodology can be the only way of delivering a true 'national service'. Many customers who have security contracts spread throughout the UK need a single point of contact where they can obtain a truly global picture of what's going on, and also where all the information and records are stored.

Branch offices tend to water down bad news, only passing on that information which their managers deem ‘corporate heads’ want to hear. The lines of communication are often drawn out, and can all-too-easily become inaccurate

Branch offices tend to water down bad news, only passing on that information which their managers deem 'corporate heads' want to hear. The lines of communication are often drawn out, and can all-too-easily become inaccurate. This is very true for the security officer on the ground who's often pushed from pillar to post in order that personal issues might be resolved. Indeed, many employees in the security sector are frustrated by the branch office culture, a set-up wherein decision-making processes are removed from the first point of contact by referring them to regional or even national offices.

Officers need to be able to pick up the telephone and talk to whomever might be able to resolve their problems. A central service allows that to happen, the lines of communication being extremely short and decisive. However, it's very important that managers are able to make decisions without being strangled by the red tape appearing to surround many larger organisations.

Having said that, of course there are some benefits to a branch network. For example, where end user services need a local delivery. Keyholding and mobile patrols readily spring to mind here. Perhaps the local client with their office on the doorstep will gain some comfort from just such an arrangement.

Relationships with the client
Frequently, I'm also asked why some security companies are successful and others not when, in principle, we're all delivering the same product. The answer has to focus on the relationship individuals are able to build with their customers, both internally and externally.

I'm a great believer in the maxim: "Do unto others as you would have done unto you", and not asking anyone to complete a task that I would not be happy in finishing myself. Again, maintaining a complete picture allows solid relationships to be developed.

The only way forward in this industry is for it to deliver exactly what has been sold. The situation is clearly exacerbated thanks to a branch network where the local manager is often not party to the sales or strategic planning process of a 'national' deal. In fact, I've yet to see any tangible evidence of 'buy in' from local managers into what can be construed as low margin national contracts.

No doubt Security Industry Authority regulation and licensing will eradicate some of the less scrupulous players in the market. That said, I'm also concerned that some companies will shoot themselves in the foot in trying to come to terms with the high standards being set, and promptly lapse back into old ways.

This current passage of time in our industry must be viewed as a unique opportunity to really put our house in order. That can only occur if there's a single, clearly defined focus within the organisation.

Source

SMT

Postscript

Bill Muskin is managing director of VSG Security