How much do customers know?

Much of the hard work carried out on raising standards in the security and fire industries over the past 30 years has been aimed at eliminating the latter as a common cause for complaint. There has been measurable success. The 'cowboys' out there are finding fewer and fewer places to hide these days.

That said, the constant fascination with price above all other factors continues to drag the debate downwards. Paradoxically, it's the customer – in seeking not to pay for what they receive – who ends up not receiving the value they're entitled to.

At the National Security Inspectorate (NSI) we've been looking at this process very closely. Not because it's part of our formal remit, but rather because it informs the vital relationship between customers and their service providers which fuels the quality cycle. Better service equals improved satisfaction equals value equals improved margins, so the cycle says.

And although it's true (in the round) on electronic systems, it's not the case so far as manned security operations are concerned. In order for the cycle to be exercised to its fullest potential, the customer must be allowed to see how the machinery works to a degree that's sufficient for them to understand the negative implications of a cost-centric solution.

A serious problem exists
Our own research has highlighted a serious problem. Typically, the customer will not have this information at their fingertips. We asked clients to explain their understanding of performance management in the industry. We asked them to define their knowledge standards, Codes of Practice and the application criteria which – we in the NSI – apply. We asked them to judge the applicability of police service or fire service regulations to their security or fire protection needs, and their compliance with these rules.

We also asked customers if they knew how other clients assessed service provision, and how they evaluated value for money. And we also asked them to describe how the relationship between high standards and insurance cover works to their benefit.

As is often the case, the result was something of a mixed bag. Some customers out there are highly informed. Most are aware of the issues. A few have minimal understanding. Nearly all of them want – and need – to know more. In the simplest terms, clients know relatively little about what we generally regard as fundamental facts within the industry.

The need to look within
There's really no point in bemoaning this situation. It's our fault. If organisations extolling the virtues of high standards aren't getting their message across then they must first look to themselves.

I'm very glad to say that, as an organisation, our own soul searching didn't last too long. On Wednesday 30 June we'll be holding a conference dedicated to the client. 'Delivering Customer Confidence' (see box panel below) will shed some light in the dark corners of standards and service delivery.

At the high level, customers need to see the trends in the security and fire industries – more regulation, the pressure points on eliminating 'cowboys' such as that which Security Industry Authority licensing will deliver, less emphasis on self-certification by companies claiming compliance to standards, new standards in electronic security systems and changed protocols on police and fire service first response (which will considerably affect liability) etc, etc.

Once you start to list the main points, it's hardly surprising to learn that we are not keeping customers up-to-date effectively. The volume of change is so great.

There are so many factors being introduced into the customer decision-making and procurement process, and it’s becoming increasingly obvious that quality issues are gaining a significant strength in the functional balance

Examining the police relationship
Within the police relationship, there's a drive towards better performance management in the security industry (inevitably leading to a change in the quality on offer to clients), a harder and harder line being taken on false alarm management (which has the potential to affect every client) and, of course, changes in response priorities.

There has also been a broadening of the public sector-private sector dialogue into the 'wider police family' which will inform client choices on strong performers.

If anything, the fire service has an even wider agenda. Post-Bain Report restructuring and reorganisation. A new national system of integrated risk management planning within fire authorities which will impact on all commercial and even some domestic customers. A first response protocol for automatic fire brigade calling systems to mirror the ACPO policy.

Not to mention a Fire Safety and Reform Order which will radically change the role of the customer and make the 'responsible person' (ie the client) place heavy reliance upon approved fire detection system installers.

Insurance is changing
Key changes are also afoot in the insurance industry, many of them linked to national police and fire legislation and regulation.

In a hard market, low risk and liability are driving insurance choices towards efficient customers whose risk profile will help to increase insurance capacity. The link with low risk, high capacity and strong security/fire performance by approved companies now leads the client directly to the door of those who can meet high standards in support of the customer's agenda.

Although this is hardly an exhaustive list of impending changes, it points out the narrowness of a debate focused on price alone.

There are so many factors being introduced into the customer decision-making and procurement process it's becoming increasingly obvious that quality issues are gaining a significant strength in the functional balance. Even a linear programming expert would have difficulty in minimising security or fire provision cost when loss of first response or higher insurance liability can so easily be the result of erring on the side of economy.

When everyone's a winner
Within both the security and fire industries, we have a duty to lay out these issues for the customer, and to explain the implications of their fine judgements. That it serves high standards, better performance and reasonable margins to do so are not unconnected facts, but they are by no means the driving force behind clear communication.

In truth, the customer is wise to spin – almost too wise in many ways – since suspicion can so easily limit trust.