Source material

With over 300 Security Industry Authority (SIA) Approved Contractors now operational in the UK, the prospect of finding a reputable security outsourcing partner has never been greater for the client. The UK security market is currently worth over £6 billion, with many security companies meeting an urgent and necessary demand for effective end user-focused solutions.

With such a large and diverse marketplace, it would appear to be relatively easy for the customer to find an appropriate outsourcing ‘bed-fellow’. Why, then, in spite of the vast array of providers and services on offer, do many corporate companies choose to turn their backs on private sector security companies and determine to manage their security commitments in-house?

A primary reason for many businesses choosing to outsource their security commitments is, of course, financial. The outsourcing of ‘non-core’ activities can generate savings on overheads which businesses would otherwise accrue were they to keep these commitments in-house. Economies of scale can enable security providers to deliver services at a lower cost than running those services in-house.

Given that the costs of establishing an effective security function in-house – organising dedicated security training courses, purchasing uniforms, establishing an effective infrastructure – can be prohibitive, many companies turn to third party suppliers that factor these ‘financials’ into their business models and spread the costs across their customer base.

Why do some businesses feel the need to have an in-house security team when – financially, at least – the better option would seem to be to outsource this commitment and concentrate on the core business activities?

Why in-house security?

There are those businesses that cut corners on security provision and, therefore, spend less on this than they would if they hired professional security services. The advent of licensing for private sector security officers has already had a marked impact on the debate surrounding outsourced versus in-house provision.

A mandatory licence for outsourced security officers has raised the level of service delivery and officer training across the industry. These safeguards are not replicated within the in-house security environment as it’s not a requirement for these operatives to be licensed. Licensing has had a significant impact on wage inflation in the security industry, and has increased the cost of employing outsourced security officers.

Some businesses believe that, by establishing an in-house Security Department, they can reduce their costs through hiring unlicensed security officers who are normally cheaper than their licensed counterparts. Those businesses are often making false savings, given that these ‘security officers’ may well be less effective at mitigating the threats facing a business than would a fully-trained, SIA-licensed officer.

Effective security providers develop bespoke solutions for their customers. Solutions that are specifically designed, in fact, to meet their individual requirements. Additionally, when potentially reduced wage rates for in-house security officers are placed in the wider context of investment in security training, technology and infrastructure, the perceived cost savings may be markedly reduced or even non-existent.

Some businesses may simply not have explored the outsourcing options available to them. They may well have developed a solution organically within the confines of their business and never felt the need to venture into the private security market.

Many businesses also want to guarantee a level of control over all functions of the business, often believing that the best way to ensure excellence of service is by keeping the provision of all services within its own domain.

A clash of commitments

Some commentators argue that the commitments of the customer and an external provider may pull in different directions. Providers may focus on making the largest margins at cost to the customer who receives an imperfect service.

Many companies feel that the control they are able to exert over security operations is increased if those operations are kept within the company.

These organisations believe that keeping security provision in-house allows them to exert control over all aspects of that provision – including being involved in the officer recruitment process – to ensure that they personally select each employee working on their premises.

In any good outsourcing contract there should be constant dialogue between the consumer and provider. It is by maintaining this dialogue that a services provider can reap the benefits of internal cohesion and excellence of service that may lead many clients to opt for the in-house approach in the first instance

It is an archaic and misleading view that sees the outsourcing relationship as one wherein there’s a loss of control. Competition between providers has been driven by standards in the security industry, and has forced companies to look at additional services that differentiate their offering. For example, a solutions provider targeting a major hotel chain’s security business may need to guarantee that its officers can ‘blend in’ to this environment. This might mean ensuring that employees are multi-skilled, able to handle traditional front-of-house functions in the hotel and that they can fulfil their security commitments.

Integrating security officers into a customer’s business is a key challenge for external providers. Demonstrating that this integration can be managed effectively may well prove to be the difference for those companies having to decide between an in-house or outsourced solution.

Providers must ensure that the service they offer is tailored specifically to the individual needs and business plan of the client. The provider must be as concerned with quality of service and cohesion with wider company needs as an in-house Security Department would be. This is, of course, one of the main reasons why many companies would choose to keep the provision of security services as an in-house operation. It ensures a personal service that they are able to adjust and monitor accordingly. If external providers can offer this type of service, many would be more inclined to look beyond the realms of their own company when thinking about security provision.

External providers move ‘in-house’

In any good outsourcing contract there should be constant dialogue between the consumer and provider. It is by maintaining this dialogue that a services provider can reap the benefits of internal cohesion and excellence of service that may lead many clients to opt for the in-house approach in the first instance.

Also, external security providers serving a variety of customers across a number of industries have a vast amount of experience and are prepared for any security eventuality or requirement, no matter how specialist. They are able to call on the expertise of an entire organisation rather than a single department within a company.

This is a major plus for customers as they can be assured that their security function has the ability to adapt to a continuously changing security landscape. Given the vast amount of resources (technology, employees, risk audits, etc) at the disposal of the providers, an in-house resource may struggle to compete with the specialist security solutions that can be offered by external security providers.

External security providers can deliver flexible and scaleable solutions that in-house Security Departments might struggle to match. For example, if extra security officers are required in response to a specific threat or event (such as the visit of a dignitary), they can be drawn from other areas of the business.

Conversely, in-house solutions can be restricted by employment contracts, including the time lag in recruiting staff and costs associated with scaling down employee levels. The flexibility offered by outsourced security solutions providers is a major advantage.

Outsourcing relationships

Businesses should always look to implement a Best of Breed solution as far as their security provision is concerned. For some, this may be delivered by an in-house security team. However, they are competing with external providers that can deliver experience, training, flexibility and genuine scaleability.

Therefore, to win contracts private security companies need to demonstrate their commitment to supplying an excellent level of service and ensuring that they develop innovative solutions to an ever-changing range of challenges.

By understanding that outsourcing contracts when there is effective communication between provider and customer can realise all the benefits associated with in-house security provision (and more besides), businesses will be far more inclined to look towards external solutions providers.

It is the duty of the service provider to ensure that they deliver tailored solutions that mirror the level of commitment expected by the customer.

If this can be achieved, the future for outsourcing in the security industry promises to be an extremely bright one indeed. n