The NSI: how are we performing?

We’d been thinking about doing it for a long time, but eventually the anticipation was just too great. We had to get on with it! So, last May the National Security Inspectorate (NSI) convened a workshop in which a sample of representatives from NSI-approved companies covering all three sectors – security systems, guarding and fire protection – were invited to give their views on us. Outside of the formal relationship of a typical inspection day.

Deliberately, we invited a mixture of supporters and critics. There’s no point in doing anything like this unless there’s some electricity in the room!

We invited Professor Martin Gill (director of Perpetuity Research and Consultancy International) to chair the event as a well-respected ‘neutral’, and arranged for all of our staff to be there such that they could hear what was being said at first hand and contribute to the discussion. The stage was set...

Examining our ‘baggage’

Approved companies worked in syndicates to analyse three problems, the first of which was ‘baggage handling’. More specifically, the perceptions about NSI ‘baggage’ which echo through the industry. Are we still carrying it? If so, how might we rid ourselves of it?

It wasn’t a great surprise to hear that there are historical perceptions of the NSI’s forerunners which define the organisation as autocratic, bureaucratic and high-handed.

What was much more enlightening, though, was the companies’ views that these ideas were no longer justified, and that significant advances in user friendliness have taken place in recent years. Interestingly, some representatives defined the difference between good and bad ‘baggage’, in turn urging us not to lose our conviction, consistency and focus on high standards (while re-charging the vitality of the relationship).

Some considered thinking illuminated the likelihood that the myth of a snooty NSI is encouraged by those companies outside of the NSI’s regimes which cannot meet the required standards and thus choose to snipe at them instead. We were urged to be more willing in taking these people to task, responding strongly to them in the media (within the pages of Security Management Today in particular, I hasten to add) and to defeat them with our sheer weight of experience – ably supported by the industry’s most eminent practitioners.

Perhaps somewhat less directly, the approved companies suggested that if external critics were better informed, they would be much more likely to see the value of our ways. That being the case, we should spend more time communicating and explaining to them than we have hitherto.

Rigour up against flexibility

The second topic considered by our guests was the critical balance of voluntary regulation. How should we balance rigour against flexibility? Should we be ‘advisors’ rather than ‘inspectors’ (bearing in mind the UKAS prohibition on advice and consultancy)? How far along the inspection-consultancy continuum should we go? This represented the heart of the matter. Indeed, it’s at the epicentre of any regulatory or certification regime.

The results produced an interesting paradox. The groundswell of opinion was that advice is an essential part of the value to be gained from an NSI visit, and that the interpretation of standards necessarily includes advice. Indeed, particularly in the manned security sector, this should extend to non-attributable, Best Practice-style advice that will safeguard confidentiality. Critically, the approved companies did not wish to be told how to do something. They only want to know what needs to be done on site, and perhaps be guided by illustration.

How should we balance rigour against flexibility? Should we be 'advisors' rather than 'inspectors'? How far along the inspection-consultancy continuum should we go? The groundswell of opinion was that advice is an essential part of the value to be gained from an NSI visit

Then the ground shifted, the mood turning towards the integrity of the NSI. Companies generally agreed that the NSI had to stay ‘over the line’ in order to be independent and take the advice/consultancy route in controlled and prescribed circumstances (rather than risk losing the necessary authority of the Inspectorate and, of course, the confidence of the customer... the end user).

One thoughtful insight described the NSI inspector as ideally being a ‘motivator’ or ‘cheerleader’, highlighting the positive effects which encouragement can induce after a visit. And there were sound suggestions that, in order to improve consistency in delivery, inspectors should be rotated more frequently.

Also, it was hinted that the NSI’s training subsidiary – NSI Support Services Ltd – ought to adopt more of an active consultancy role in order to relieve advisory pressure on the NSI (the Inspectorate).

‘Negative and destructive’ criticism

The third and final topic under discussion concerned the few companies that major in ‘negative and destructive’ criticism (of course, the whole point of the day was to receive both positive and constructive comment).

While they may have signed up to voluntary regulation, there are a small number of companies whose approach is both vocally critical and (typically) marginal on performance. These companies just manage to creep under the wire on standards and, from an NSI perspective, consume a disproportionate amount of our time and effort – costing others while making life unpleasant into the bargain.

“How might we manage the relationship with such companies?”, we asked ourselves. Might the messenger avoid being shot by changing the presentation of the message?

The answer was both definitive and emphatic. These companies should be weeded out, and the NSI must take a much harder line. There was further discussion concerning the introduction of a ‘Blacklist’ and of ‘naming and shaming’ companies which become de-approved so as to offer them a strong incentive to either perform adequately or withdraw gracefully from the scene.

Another helpful suggestion was that more could be done during the introductory phase to educate companies on the standards expected and the tolerances allowed.

At the end of the workshop, I was left with a strong feeling that progress was being made (and being seen to be made), and that companies value this change in direction and are very supportive of it. Most importantly, I’m certain that we gained much from opening our doors and listening. I’d like to thank those companies who contributed towards the debate. We must do it again – and soon!

Tom Mullarkey is chief executive of the National Security Inspectorate