During the nascent phase of the Security Industry Authority’s (SIA) incorporation within the sector, many existing contract security companies were perturbed. They misunderstood the Regulator’s intentions, and firmly believed that an ‘Us and Them’-style relationship would develop.
Three years on and, after a number of Approved Contractor Forums, personal meetings, visits and appearances by the SIA, it would seem that many of those initially apprehensive individuals and organisations recognise there has been an ongoing – and exceptional – degree of professionalism from the Regulator. A concerted effort to enhance rapport vis-a-vis contractor-SIA relationships has resulted in strong personal interactions.
This commitment has engendered strong communication channels, in turn resulting in improved performance and practice from the Regulator. The real issues are being tackled head-on, setting apart our Regulator as one to be admired and emulated. The SIA’s expedient success is a remarkable achievement, but continued efforts to take into account the demands of the industry would perpetuate the existing and positive direction taken.
If there is any decision made to revert to the totalitarian approach initially championed by the Regulator that almost served to alienate contractors completely – ie the rigid stance adopted on not creating a uniform renewal date for first time licences, with the resultant surge of licence applications close to deadline by applicants striving to ensure the maximum worth of their ‘badge’ – then we would see all of that good work being undone, and practices brought into play that are at best superficial.
Progress is being made
It’s pleasing to see the progress that was highlighted in the last series of Approved Contractor Forums. Extensions to the Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) in Scotland, industry benchmarking, an increase in the number of registered companies to a figure in excess of 400, reductions in the need for License Dispensation Notices (now applied for only sparingly) and research into the positive effects associated with accreditation are all encouraging. The news that 97% of ACS companies have re-registered is exceptional.
Provision of the new SIA brochures that ACS companies can now send out with their own marketing literature not only highlights the elite nature of the scheme, with its pioneering avant garde membership, but also informs potential clients of the importance of the SIA’s role. At the same time, it affords an insight into exemplary contractor selection processes.
Bonus points for the SIA, then. These brochures are an extremely good marketing tool. I’m pleased with this initiative as, during its Forums, I have badgered the SIA on the need to promote itself more voraciously outside of the industry.
That process was bolstered still further by an innovative Buyer Awareness Campaign that involved the publication of five articles in specialist public sector titles… with plans for private sector journals to be used in the future. I’m inclined to believe that this campaign ought to be rolled-out by extension to some of the mainstream national newspapers due to their wide-ranging reader populus.
Positive moves have also been made in the imposition of a requirement for assessment within six months of all new companies entering ACS registration via the existing Fast-Track mechanism. To be frank, though, this route to registration should really be terminated entirely as its purpose was to facilitate early entry into the scheme prior to the licensing remit inception date. This date has now long gone??!!
Not wishing to sound selfish, let me clarify the logic behind my response. The Fast-Track mechanism establishes whether a company is BS EN ISO 9001 accredited, and doesn’t calibrate full alignment with the principles of the European Foundation of Quality Management from which the SIA’s ACS paradigm is formulated. How, then, after the ACS has been in operation for two years, can this ‘halfway house’ measure possibly be seen as an acceptable achievement?
What about the environment?
I’m perturbed that when making the five amendments to the ACS Self-Assessment Workbook, the SIA apparently overlooked the potential for enhancing environmental aspects of companies operating within our sector. How the SIA can possibly justify the purported EFQM model design of the ACS programme with only two questions pertaining to this vitally important sustainable development precept I’ll never know.
With this topic so high on the political agenda just now, and so often being overlooked by an industry continually striving for reductions in cost (and, more often than not, offsetting this with poor environmental performance), it would seem particularly callous of the SIA to continue with what appears to be a rather limp stance on this matter. In my previous article (‘Secure future for posterity’, Guarding Watch, SMT, January 2008, p54) I referred to ‘green’ schemes companies could adopt that would actually reduce financial burdens. Only a few of those schemes required any initial capital outlay.
The other amendment to the Self-Assessment Workbook includes increased scores for companies that proceed with the previous recommendations within BS 7858:2004 for a ten-year employment history vetting. This contradicts with the revised BS 7858:2006 that now stipulates the requirement of a five-year employment history vetting in tandem with financial probity checks.
More informed individuals than I at the British Standards Institution have undertaken a widescale Stakeholder engagement survey and holistic wider consultation, and reviewed historical papers and statistical data over a lengthy period. They’ve duly decided to reduce the vetting period to five years on the back of this… Could it not be seen as slightly bizarre – if not inconsistent – of our compatriots at the SIA to promote a defunct concept that has already been terminated by the industry’s more astute professionals?!
To subcontract or not
To be honest, I’m also somewhat bemused by the fact that companies maintaining a non-subcontracting policy attain a lower scoring than those solutions providers producing an efficient and effective subcontracting policy. It seems completely illogical that a company overseeing its entire services provision internally is viewed as being deficient, whereas a company that chooses to engage the services of a further contractor – also with ACS designation – is somehow regarded as superior. Which pathway do you think affords better degrees of operational control? Yes. I know the answer, too.
As an organisation, we devised an appropriate subcontracting policy, and we were then marked down as it wasn’t being used. Faced with the option of hiring the services of an external company or campaigning for an alteration to this erroneous process, I opted for the latter. Indeed, I set out to write this article in a bid to effect change in respect of this blatant anomaly.
The development of the searchable Register to incorporate a regional provision allocation facility enables clients to obtain suitable providers with consummate ease. However, the existing system attracts requests with a majority of 68% from service providers and only 32% from buyers. This would suggest to me that better marketing is required.
The SIA has tackled the problem – to a certain extent, at least – within the aforementioned brochure and several adverts. Perhaps the statistics will improve come the next ACS Forum. If not, a more significant push is required to cater for this need to benefit those who have elected to join the ACS process (and those that use the private security sector).
It’s frightening to discover that there have been over 130 cases of brand misuse. The fact that 59% of cases involved the misuse of logos and 37% were misuses of the ACS (with companies claiming wider accreditation than actual achievement) is irrelevant.
The importance has to be set in creating a robust system to rectify reported incidents of this type. Any increase in frequency will highlight the fallibility of the Approved Contractor Scheme, and serve to tarnish the one true piece of evidence of superiority for providers within the security sector.
Potential for intelligence gathering
The SIA appears to have a fairly efficient method in place for reacting to these concerns, and punitive measures (including a fine of up to GB pound 5,000) are quite an effective deterrent.
That said, the whole thing has to be rigorously policed. By highlighting this concern, the Regulator has increased the potential for intelligence gathering. However, the industry will need to remain super vigilant and ‘whistleblow’ on any suspected infringements. Otherwise, the recent advancements made by our industry under the SIA’s direction will be rendered null and void.
As the last ACS Forum drew to a close, an attendee spoke during the Any Other Business ‘slot’ of the problems he’d faced while committing to employ the incumbent workers from a public sector contract that had previously formed an in-house operation. The individual concerned spoke of TUPE conflict which arose from the need to license an un-licensable officer.
These comments disturbed me, as they once again highlight the need for an egalitarian approach to the licensing remit. However, on this occasion it’s not the fairness agenda that has underpinned the mood for change. Rather, it’s the increasing legislative burden placed on companies caught in the crossfire of two opposing legal definitions.
On speaking to the SIA staff present at the Forum following its conclusion, I was informed that they’re going to recommend a change in legislation on this particular clause.