I read with interest your various letters regarding the poor state of training within the security industry. Although each letter tackled the issue from a slightly different viewpoint, the overwhelming conclusion was the shared opinion that the standard of training within the industry is awful.
Of course, that is, except for within the companies of those people writing the articles. It would be easy to structure this comment with the same intent and show how much training we do, how we understand our customer’s needs, and how we recognise the benefits etc. In our experience however, such partisan comments are not well received by the public at large.
We can all criticise other companies for their lack of commitment to training, but it is this argument that serves to demonstrate the divisions within our industry. There is huge pressure to compete against each other, particularly on price. Good training as we all know can be expensive and it therefore follows that some companies will try to reduce their training costs as much as possible in order to remain competitive.
It takes courage for any company to improve its investment in training. Yes, of course there are benefits, accompanied by blind faith that those benefits and investment will work through to the bottom line.
I know that there are isolated cases of companies making this investment but, in our view, there is no perceivable move forward across the whole industry. If, perhaps, we could put the need to compete to one side, we could move forward and start to improve standards across all aspects of the business including training. Let us stop criticising and look at how we can take responsibility for our own issues and take a pro-active approach to improving training at all levels.
As well as being the training and quality manager for Group 4 Total Security, I am also vice-chair of the manned guarding Education and Training Forum (ETF). This is a forum that acts under the auspices of SITO, but is independent. It is made up of training managers from across the industry, and a large number of training providers.
It is always disappointing to the Chair, Jane McKenna from Chubb, and myself that the training providers outnumber the contract guarding company training representatives at these meetings. This is not because the training providers do not play a valuable role, but because it has no ‘teeth’ if it has no strong contract security representation.
This forum meets each quarter and is an opportunity for security companies to influence training policy and standards within the industry and also to learn best practice from each other. When so few security companies attend, it suggests that there is little interest in these activities.
Security companies must start working together to raise standards. This will never happen, I hear you say. Well, it is possible – as a number of us have demonstrated. In addition to attending the ETF, a small group from the largest security companies, Group 4, Chubb, Initial and Reliance meet on a regular basis to discuss training issues.
We are happy to put our differences to one side (for a short time at least) to compare, contrast, debate and exchange ideas on training matters. The main thrust of our discussions is to look at how we can improve training not only at security officer level, but also, and in particular, at management level. Each company has invested in management training and is keen to see it happen across the whole industry. But we can only influence our own companies at this moment. The real question is how do we start to influence others? A good starting point is to turn to minimum standards. Whilst I agree that 2 days basic job training is far too low (we carry out five days), at least a minimum standard exists and very few companies do not conform to this standard. Currently this is the only training standard for the industry and it is aimed at security officer level.
So what can we do? Well, let us force the issue. If some companies cannot take the positive step to invest in training let’s help them to do so instead of criticising them. If we start with minimum standards, we can move upwards from there. If everyone has to comply with the minimum standards then it starts to close the wide gaps in price, which we have to accept is a key factor. With minimum standards, it is not for companies to make the decision alone, indeed much of the heartache is removed as the decision is made for them.
I remember well the day at Group 4 when we decided to double the number of days in our basic job training module. Shock, horror, mass resignations! Well okay, not quite.
It took about a year of this before we really started to see the benefits. A reduction in labour turnover, improvement in customer service and fewer complaints. Now, we have managers who see the benefits, but this certainly wasn’t the case to begin with. As a training manager, I have been lucky to have worked with successive managing directors who were, and continue to be, prepared to make the investment in training. And that leap of faith becomes less fearful once you see tangible results.
How then, can we ensure minimum standards exist? Well, there is plenty of opportunity for this to happen.
There is a committee currently looking at BS 7499 and we are seeking to involve, for the first time, some standards regarding management training. There are BSIA and SITO minimum standards that could be strengthened and people attending the ETF can influence the SITO standards if they wish to. But importantly there needs to be the willingness across the whole industry and training managers themselves need to take the lead.
I have been at many meetings when training managers have conceded that their companies won’t even think of increasing their training budget. Training managers should be one of the loudest voices, giving clear messages to the board and convincing them of the benefits. We should always be pushing to drive standards up and not be prepared to give in without clearly laying out the consequences of less training.
Organisations like BSIA and SITO can play a great role here in supporting training managers. There is a need to convince commercial organisations to contract with guarding companies who do show commitment. Training managers may then suddenly find that their senior management are keen to listen.
We are now working with many organisations who are keen, not only to see what management training is carried out, but to actively participate in workshops and training programmes. They help me to convince our managers of the need to train, and that in turn makes my job much easier.
There is still a huge number of organisations, though, who will only buy on price and don’t see the benefit of companies investing in management training. Whilst they are happy to receive low levels of service, then some guarding companies will continue to provide it.
Through forums, committees, introducing minimum standards and such like, we need to keep fighting for high standards. However at the end of the day, there will need to be a huge mind-shift before the majority of this industry stops talking and actually puts its money where its mouth is.
Perhaps, there should be more naming and shaming of those guarding companies who don’t invest and more promotion of those who do. This way security managers and buyers are better able to make decisions based on fact rather than slick marketing which obscures training shortcomings.
Some companies will willingly come forward and look to the future, others will not. We need to start differentiating between those that do and those that don’t so that those who do invest reap the benefits, not just internally, but externally as well. Maybe, just maybe, we will then start to work as an industry rather than a loose collection of guarding companies.
Anyone interested in attending the manned guarding ETF should contact SITO direct, Jane McKenna at Chubb or Amanda Moore at Group 4 Total Security.
