Economic analysts are pointing to a slowdown in growth, and a subsequent downturn in the economy. The dreaded ‘R’ word – recession – isn’t mentioned that often, but it’s certainly a spectre looming on the horizon. What, then, should guarding contractors be doing to ready themselves?
Inevitably, some clients will come under increasing pressure to review costs and prices. They will be expected to make their contributions to corporate cost saving programmes, and show how they are helping to maximise their own company’s performance.
The simple and seemingly straightforward approach that they will take will be to confront their suppliers – the manned guarding contractors – with an immediate demand for reduced costs. This can be achieved through the reduction of manning levels, cancellation of training programmes, a lowering of management input and a reduction in the contractor’s management fees.
The real issue at stake here is: how does the guarding supplier respond to such a set of demands? The first – and easiest – response is to agree with the customer that it’s possible to reduce manning levels or eliminate certain shifts. This will have the desired financial effect in the short term, but at what real cost?
Based on an original site risk assessment, and followed up by way of discussions with the end user, manning levels and shift patterns should be whatever is required to ensure the security and integrity of the site.
Any reduction in manpower will place an intolerable burden on the remaining team members to cover the gaps. Inevitably, if some duties are neglected the site’s security provision will be compromised. The officers will start to feel overstretched, and discontent will spread among the ranks – which leads to the dreaded and unwanted staff turnover.
The customer will then be dissatisfied and probably seek to blame the contractor for poor performance levels, which could engender a parting of the ways. Responsible security companies must not accept such a scenario.
The second approach could well be an attempt at agreeing ‘phased’ savings programmes with the end user. This could involve a ‘freezing’ of wage rates, a reduction in management time, input and charges and the cancellation of security officer benefits (including training). Such an approach is tantamount to professional suicide.
It is common knowledge that poor wages and the need to work long – often anti-social – hours to earn a living wage inhibits the recruitment of quality people into our industry. At Reliance, we’ve campaigned long and hard against this.
Adding value for the client
Cancelling training, of course, is the opposite of what should happen. Well-trained teams can achieve more, add greater value for the client and will not suffer from the disbenefits of high staff turnover rates.
Only the supplier will know whether the profit margin being achieved is sufficient to cover all costs and deliver some genuine profit to satisfy shareholder aspirations. That said, any reduction in margins is a signal that the supplier doesn’t believe its service is worth it!
We occasionally hear of security companies moaning about the ever-increasing cost of European employment legislation, but what are they doing about it?
If you are providing a properly-managed service, such costs are understood and will be funded by the customer. Those who fail to provide the service cannot expect the understanding of their end users.
The third option that the manned guarding supplier can take when confronted with any kind of problem – whether it be an economic downturn or something more local – is the one that’s probably most widely practised. Namely the ‘Ostrich’ option!
Keep your head down and hope that, even though the client may have asked once, a non-response from the guarding contractor could well be forgotten about. Neither a sensible nor practical stance to take.
Working with the end user
The security requirement must be determined between client and contractor, and a working partnership created. The aims and objectives of both parties must be openly discussed and assessed, with thought and understanding given to all points of view.
The need for the customer to deliver benefits to his or her company cannot be forgotten or overlooked, but how much better it will be for all concerned if the supplier can deliver added value through a total security solution. A solution combining all of today’s readily-available security tools.
Maintaining or even increasing the levels of training can improve the morale and effectiveness of a given security team, leading to greater client benefits. Similarly, retaining management cover and control will ensure that the new enhanced levels of value-added service are delivered. This will delight the customer.
What I’m suggesting here is not radical, but what it does require is a sense of purpose and determination. Above all else, it demands a belief that ours is – and must be seen as – a quality industry that thinks for itself and acts in a professional and businesslike manner.
Once we adopt these principles then our industry is on the road to establishing itself in the image to which we must all aspire.
Ken Allison is chairman of Reliance Security Services
