The selection of a security partner is not the easiest strand of the security manager’s job. When it comes to buying utilities, the main consideration for the end user is almost certainly price – which can be easily and objectively measured. When it comes to new infrastructure, whether the budget is tight or unlimited there will at least be tangible results (a lift, a cafe, a car park or a new reception) where everyone can see the value of the investment – or not, as the case may be. With security, the situation is not so straightforward.
As with every other aspect of running a business, when it comes to security there is a constant pressure not just to maintain the status quo but to improve performance over time. The difference with security, however, is that improvement is often hard to measure.
It’s usually pretty easy to see if a business has a security problem, but if there are few security incidents it’s not always so easy to tell if the security provider is doing a good job, or if the business is simply going through a period of good fortune.
How is it possible to tell what would have transpired if the security provider had not been there? If a security contract is new, it might be very simple to compare the results – a sharp fall in theft or vandalism – against those of the previous provider. However, if the contract is ongoing and already running well the visible signs of improvement are less obvious.
How, then, might end users be absolutely sure that they are continuing to obtain good value for their organisation?
Added value or reduced costs?
For the in-house manager, there are often only two options for demonstrating an improvement: obtaining added value services from their security provider or cutting costs. Unfortunately, in the UK the most common route has been to cut costs, but this has undoubtedly had a negative effect on service levels in some quarters – devaluing the service provided by security companies.
An emphasis on cost-cutting overlooks the fact that the vast majority of the costs of security services relate directly to the number and quality of security personnel, whose time cannot be bought more cheaply without compromising on delivery. For the time being, at least, security is still largely about personnel, and there comes a point at which lower prices interfere with a security company’s ability to provide and retain responsible, competent, committed officers.
Margins in this industry are already relatively small, of course, and reducing costs without reducing hours will inevitably lead to less time for training and lower wages and benefits (or to shortcuts in background checks, quality control or health and safety). Obviously, low wages lead to a lack of commitment, absenteeism and high staff turnover rates, which in the long run can cause huge problems for the client.
What is worse is that when many security companies have themselves subscribed to this point of view, and choose to compete solely on price, standards begin to slip and confirm the buyer’s worse prejudices about the private sector contractors as a whole.
Squaring the security circle
Of course, many of the in-house professionals who read SMT will be all-too-familiar with this situation, and want to help break this vicious cycle. It has been suggested that one way to square the circle of reducing costs while maintaining effectiveness is through technology. For instance, CCTV is undoubtedly playing its part in reducing overall costs for security provision. However, end users must recognise that an investment in new technology will often incur additional short-term costs if it’s to be implemented effectively.
New technology without appropriate training is liable to be a waste of money, and involves recruiting individuals who are capable of handling technology competently. It’s reasonable to believe that these individuals will need to be paid more if companies are to attract the right staff with the skills necessary to operate the new systems. Cost savings are then realised in the medium-to-long term.
If the picture painted here seems a little bleak, the good news for end users is that it’s not impossible to find security companies that care about the quality and level of service they provide. Ultimately, though, it’s important that those security companies offering a high quality service continue to make the case for high value rather than low cost, while still addressing the pressures felt by in-house security managers to show improvements.
At the very least a contract security provider should be able to evidence a continuing ability to provide good value over time. This can be achieved through regular formalised review meetings looking not solely at the security log, but at benchmarked measures (for example the absenteeism of individuals, the training of officers or officer churn). There should also be frank discussions of any issues on either side and, again, a formalised consideration of any change in circumstances.
A reputable contractor will repeatedly make the case for good pay and conditions for its officers – not to mention high levels of training – by way of ensuring competency, loyalty and professionalism. It will consider each assignment on its own merits. The contractor should also conduct a full security audit. That’s the only way the customer’s objectives will be met in the most appropriate fashion.
