John Wright, managing director, Trident Safeguards

John Wright (JW): Yes, I'm very excited about the future with MITIE. It's a hugely successful £565 million turnover group offering a broad range of support services nationally, but one with a very small element of security guarding. Given the increased client demand for them to take on security duties alongside their other services, it made perfect strategic sense for MITIE to respond to those requests by buying Trident Safeguards.

There's a tangible commitment from MITIE to become a major player in the security industry over the next few years, and that's a very exciting prospect for all of us involved at such an early stage in development.

We can play an active part in shaping the service as it progresses.

SMT: Do you see Trident becoming a national provider and, if so, will it affect the reputation you have painstakingly built up inside the M25 region where you currently operate? In other words, can you achieve throughout the UK what you have managed to do in Greater London?

JW: Trident will continue to provide a local service to clients in London. The unique selling point of our business is the local management responsiveness – a central London team serving London clients. On our own, I don't think we could achieve consistently across the UK what we have in the Capital. Indeed, over the years Trident's chairman Jim O'Hara and I have resisted any temptation to try.

MITIE can, though, through a network of businesses like ours. That's the plan. If you look at the MITIE business model it's very much like that of Trident Safeguards. Companies with clearly defined territorial boundaries providing superior local services to local clients.

To be honest, this is why we found MITIE's proposition so compelling – shared values and an enthusiasm for service excellence at all levels in the organisation. The MITIE Group then overlays on that local structure a national team that's able to co-ordinate service for national clients through the regions.

What we shall be doing is working with our colleagues in the MITIE security business in the north of England and Scotland to identify Best Practice and apply that to everything we do. MITIE has already invested in the very latest remote monitoring technologies for the benefit of Trident's clients.

There's no doubt that we shall obtain national synergies in our business, especially as MITIE makes further acquisitions, but the fundamental principle of local management leadership and responsiveness will remain key to the MITIE services throughout the Group.

That's particularly true at Trident, where it is very much business as usual. Our clients will see no adverse change in the way we conduct our business. What they will see is the support we receive from MITIE, and the commitment to being 'Best of Breed' in service delivery.

SMT: How do you see the private sector's contract manned security industry developing post-licensing?

JW: Very much for the better. At the moment, the only standard part of the process affecting all companies will be the licence application. How painful that process will be for individual companies will largely depend on the investment they have already made and the standards currently applied to the business. Once through the licensing procedure the industry is bound to be in much better shape.

The checks on all current private sector employees at the licence application stage should sort the men from the boys, but any company applying the strict vetting and training processes now should find that straightforward, albeit administratively burdensome. At least all companies in the industry will have a common basic screening threshold for staff selection.

It will be highly important that BS 7858 is applied thereafter, as well as competency testing for specific security roles. I do not underestimate the help we are going to have to give our current security officers. Help to understand the need to obtain a licence, complete the paperwork and pay the fee, etc. We have already begun to educate our staff in these areas, and I'm sure they'll need such help right the way through the process.

The real effects of regulation will be felt through the Approved Companies Scheme. At the present time, no decision has been taken by the Security Industry Authority (SIA) as to whether or not this will be compulsory.

SMT: Do you believe there'll be different levels of guarding within the industry? For example, some companies may not want to join an Approved Companies Scheme. Will they suffer as a result?

The SIA’s concern about imposing too much change on the private security industry at one time is understandable. While the Approved Companies Scheme is voluntary, there will be firms who’ll deliver to the highest standards but choose not to become appro

JW: An Approved Companies Scheme will not of itself guarantee service delivery levels. Mind you, if properly policed it will ensure correct recruitment procedures, training and welfare standards. The key to this one lies partly with the SIA, who will determine whether it ends up being compulsory or not. The Private Security Industry Act 2001 allows the SIA to delay their decision.

The SIA's concern about imposing too much change on the private security industry at one time is understandable. While the Approved Companies Scheme is voluntary, I'm sure there will be firms who will deliver to the highest standards but choose not to become approved. However, they're the ones we would then start to worry about.

The other key influencers are the end users – our clients – and the insurance sector.

It's true to say that the BSIA would probably not have grown its membership to the size it is today had tender specifications not included membership of the Association as a qualifying criterion. In the same way, I think tenders requiring Approved Company status will drive this scheme in the right direction. That said, I do feel the insurers could play their part as well.

I know that the BSIA is aiming to stage end user seminars to spread the word, and the effectiveness of those events will go some way to determining the outcome. Inevitably, though, for those customers who view security as a cause of distress or see it as a grudge purchase, there will surely be resistance to anything that might have a bearing on price. There's no doubt in my mind that the industry will have to pass on the cost of licensing.

While the Approved Companies Scheme membership remains voluntary there'll be price differentials for the security service. I'm sure the less discerning buyers out there will continue to take the cheapest option, but I believe those security companies who want to survive in the longer term will have already moved towards the requirements of Approved Company status if they haven't attained them already. Most clients will value that approach.

Ultimately, we'll have to wait and see what the standards require of security companies, and whether or not the scheme is mandatory.

SMT: The SIA is making an impact. Where do you think this leaves the BSIA, IPSA, the industry Inspectorates and even The Security Watchdog in the future?

JW: I think each of the bodies you refer to plays a different part in the industry at the moment, and each is valuable in its own right.

The BSIA, with David Dickinson at the helm as chief executive, is doing a very good job just now in representing the needs of the industry to the SIA. That is greatly to David's credit.

At the end of the day, I think it's up to the organisations themselves to prove their value to individual companies and organisations.

SMT: You have always focused on man management throughout your career. Do you think the manned security industry is any good at it, or is it impossible to get the job done properly in the current private sector environment?

JW: Any labour intensive industry places huge demands on the skills of its management. This is particularly true in our industry, where we are heavily reliant on the performance of the front line of service delivery – the security officers themselves. If the officers are of the right calibre, are well trained and briefed, highly motivated and properly supported then things go well. Lose one piece of that jigsaw, though, and problems will surely present themselves.

As an industry, we've probably not invested in training our managers as well as we might have done. The key tier of management is the one that serves these front line staff. I say 'serves' but equally I mean 'leads'. Communication and motivational skills have to be of the highest order to obtain the best results. If they don't come naturally then they're difficult to develop without training.

These managers need high levels of commitment to operate successfully because to 'get it right' means working beyond the normal nine-to-five day. They also need great resilience to deal with the problems they encounter every day.

Above them, senior managers need to support front line managers by making sure they're provided with the resources that enable them to operate effectively. They should be the leaders, and leadership places extra demands on managers because it is best done by example. By example, they can demonstrate to a less experienced manager how to deal with their staff and clients. They can set the operating standards to which others must aspire. They also need to be there and support their managers when necessary.

Post-regulation, security companies will have the attendant costs of licensing and Approved Company status to bear, as well as accreditation to ISO and its related costs. One wonders how much need there’ll be for any additional affiliation

When senior management loses touch with its front line staff and client base, it's true to say that the service tends to be structured around the needs of the organisation and not those of its clients and staff.

There are some really good first line operations and contracts managers in the industry. They work very hard, and get most things right most of the time, but I fear they're not always given the backing and support they both need and deserve.

As senior managers, we must accept responsibility for our own failings in leadership if matters are not right. The buck stops here!

SMT: What mandatory training should a security officer receive in the Brave New World of manned guarding?

JW: The demands placed on security officers are greater now than they have ever been, and the necessary skills set is much broader in the sector of the market in which we operate. There's more technology involved, crime is on the increase and, of course, the terrorist threat is greater than at any time in the past.

For our part, we have embraced the SITO three-day Basic Job Training programme for static and patrol security officers. It's a very sound package for all new staff. We embellish the customer care element of the course by introducing specific requirements for the assignments on which our officers are about to work. We spend time on disability awareness so that disabled people are properly dealt with by our staff, and complete First Aid training as required by the client. There's a strong argument for this to be mandatory.

As a rule, we like to prescribe training for a given assignment following on from a risk assessment and formal training needs analysis undertaken with the client. That way, we can deliver a more bespoke service. At the moment, we're doing much more CCTV Control Room and IT training as well.

SMT: What should happen to security companies who flagrantly break the rules and discredit the Association(s) to which they belong? Should they be thrown out?

JW: Yes, without question. It's not fair on the rest of the membership if that doesn't happen in the wake of a full and thorough investigation.

SMT: We've always rated your management team very highly, and very few of them leave the company. How do you do it in an industry where high staff churn is the norm?

JW: All I do is reinforce the values that have been in this company from Day One when it was started up by Jim O'Hara. Total client focus, respect for the individual and an open, honest approach to our dealings with them.

We have a strong history of promoting from within which has generated a team of managers who are highly empathetic in dealing with our security teams, and very responsive to our clients' needs.

As managers we communicate well because we see each other regularly, and we deal with problems constructively. There are no witch hunts here. We do operate truly as a very supportive team company-wide. I think everyone enjoys that philosophy.

SMT: Finally, John, you were a very strong supporter of 'A Contract of Substance' (SMT, April 2002, pp20-23). Were we all just dreaming or, given the right political climate, could such a standard for manned guarding provision be achieved?

JW: I don't think we were dreaming at all. We were a group comprised of like-minded, medium-sized companies and clients trying to establish a benchmark for superior operating and welfare requirements of quality security contracts. The whole initiative was targeted at clients wanting a high quality service rather than a universal audience.

Much of what we were incorporating into 'A Contract of Substance' will, I'm sure, be reflected in the standards laid down for Approved Company status under the SIA.