Having read the opinions expressed in last month’s Security Management Today by Stuart Lowden and Bill Muskin (‘Time to Make The Change ‘), I’d like to lay down a challenge to all security companies – and in particular the Top 20 guarding contractors – to seriously reflect upon and then break the pattern of providing low cost solutions complete with lack of innovation and investment. The latter most often affecting our most important asset – our people.
I’m also asking end users to revisit their suppliers and ensure that they’re genuinely receiving value for money rather than just the basic provision of Security Industry Authority (SIA)-licensed personnel.
Innovation is what’s needed
Two years after the Private Security Industry Act 2001 became law, it’s hugely important to look again at the challenges presented to the contract guarding sector, and determine whether or not investment – most notably in our staff – and innovation have suffered as a result of not only regulation itself but also increased cost pressures.
I’ve always been a fervent supporter of Research and Development, not just in the arenas of security training and technology but also in other areas driven by our people that could ultimately benefit the security operatives involved as well as the client.
While extremely difficult, it’s possible to offer innovative security solutions at virtually no cost. This is what differentiates the better security companies from those selfishly driven by the profit motive.
Added value for the client should be the key element involved when it comes to winning work but, more often than not, innovation is neither recognised nor appreciated within the low cost solution. Security officers working reasonable hours and being paid a fair wage for doing so can clearly add value to the customer’s business.
Low cost and cost-effective
Credit should always be given to those security companies who drive the industry on by investing in the welfare of their staff and bring a little more to the party than year-on-year reward for their shareholders. When all’s said and done, it should be easier for privately-owned security companies to invest in and provide innovative solutions than it is for large public companies driven by the share price and the payment of dividends to people who sometimes have little or nothing to do with the security sector.
We must recognise that there’s a fundamental difference between low cost solutions and solutions that are cost-effective. While the former are purely cost-driven, the latter – while not necessarily the most cost-effective option in the short term – might actually yield significant reductions in either direct or indirect costs over the long term. They might also improve the client’s profit and loss account.
Acquiring the knowledge
It’s generally the case that low cost solutions are a short term fix, with little or no benefit to either the security services provider or the customer. Security companies cannot hope to provide long-term investment and innovative solutions if they don’t have the knowledge on board to fully comprehend the challenges faced by their client. Acquiring that knowledge takes time. That being the case, longer contracts lay the groundwork in facilitating investment and innovative security solutions.
What’s the present situation in the security sector in relation to investment and innovation? For many contractors, Research and Development in the post-licensing era has necessarily been put on the back burner due to some security companies blatantly driving costs downwards to win contracts. Contracts have even been accepted at a loss simply to increase market share.
Making a genuine difference
I firmly believe that it would make a fundamental difference if tender documents included the following questions:
If we are genuinely going to make radical changes for the better in this industry, security company directors need to put the ‘God of Profit’ to one side for a moment and don their thinking caps. We need more visionary, philanthropic types with entrepreneurial skills which can be transferred to client businesses. We also need to invest more in our staff. After all, they are our business. Long hours and poor wages belong in the past.
In what is a client-driven industry, a joint approach by all forward-thinking security companies is what’s needed, with a focus on the most important asset of all – the officers. For any one company to break ranks on that could prove to be fatal.
If such a joint approach can be realised, end users might just reward innovation by offering better financial incentives or contract terms.
At the end of the day, isn’t that what we should all be working towards?
