What are customers looking for when procuring security services? Is it membership of the British Security Industry Association (BSIA) or being an Approved Contractor with the Security Industry Authority (SIA)? Or, in an ideal world, is it both? From this simple statement is it any wonder that end users of security guarding are becoming confused over what’s what? Even down to the simple question of what’s the difference between the BSIA and the SIA (apart from the ‘B’, that is!)?
BSIA membership has always stood as a good benchmark for the buyers of security services. It’s widely recognised as the industry lead body – an organisation that has credibility and sets standards for membership that afford customers a degree of comfort. In real terms this is still a sound benchmark. All member companies are subjected to a fairly rigorous vetting process and will have been trading for at least two years, demonstrating a good operational and financial track record.
Need for a ‘differentiator’
Before the SIA came onto the scene, the BSIA had identified that there needed to be a ‘differentiator’ for some companies who were committed to pushing the standards upwards. In this respect, it brought out a draft document called ‘Towards the Future’. In my opinion, this was certainly a very positive move and one that the more credible and concerned companies were signing up to in an endeavour to show they were ‘different’ in their approach to security services.
At about the same time as the release of this document, along came the SIA – a Government-formed body responsible for the introduction and policing of the legislation for the licensing and regulation of our industry. The Regulator set about creating new training standards for the licensing of staff and, in respect of security officers, extended the three-day Basic Job Training course to include one day of conflict management, two examinations and a thorough vetting process (encompassing a Criminal Records Bureau check to enable an individual to gain a licence).
The Regulator also offered voluntary membership of a new standard, the Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS), a mark to highlight quality-driven companies and enable them to obtain greater opportunities in the private and public sectors and the ‘Wider Police Family’.
The debate over the difference that licensing and the ACS has made has been flogged to death, as has the ongoing – and ludicrous – situation that exempts in-house operatives. What is emerging in the aftermath of the regulation process, however, is the big question: ‘What do we want as Stakeholders?’ Is it membership of the BSIA, who should – and must – be seen as our industry lead body, or is the SIA the new ‘flagship’ setting the industry standards (with membership of the ACS viewed by procurement specialists as the prerequisite for tender entry)?
In my view, the SIA – and, more specifically, membership of the ACS – doesn’t offer a significant difference to a company as most are more than capable of obtaining ACS. Certainly, some who wear the ACS ‘badge’ make me very concerned as to whether the scheme is robust enough, and whether or not the Regulator has the entry level correct.
Closer examination of the BSIA
Let’s look inside the BSIA, of which I’m an active national committee member (I have just been elected chairman of the Midlands Region). We are asking the big question of how do we make the BSIA membership a differentiator, the benchmark for security services and a mark that customers will demand as part of their tender process?
It is a big call because, yes, we can raise the bar, but then will it become a select club, excluding young up-and-coming businesses striving to deliver a quality service? This is something we don’t want to happen, and there is currently a major debate happening on this issue to take matters forward.
One thing for sure is that something has to happen sooner rather than later, as at the moment we cannot show our quality and difference through either of these two bodies – a factor being that there are currently 407 ACS-registered companies and 130 members of the BSIA operational within the guarding sector.
Solutions providers will therefore have to put matters to one side and use their own Unique Selling Points to win over the hearts and minds of security services procurers. Some will say that this should always be the case, but at least if the SIA or BSIA marks were recognised as belonging to the true market leaders then the procurement teams would have a good place to start. Notwithstanding that, many companies have raised their own profiles through reputation and referral to an extent that, at times, this often supersedes these accreditations that are seen as a ‘given’.
Personally, having written to every member of the BSIA in the Midlands Region, I can report that I received replies from companies who understand membership of the BSIA is important, but some were disillusioned with the perceived benefits it brings.
Working behind the scenes
In defence of the Trade Association, I have witnessed some very difficult hurdles it has had to cross, certainly when dealing with other agencies. In this respect, chief executive David Dickinson has worked relentlessly hard behind the scenes (which many of you will not have heard about or witnessed).
Also, the BSIA will not become strong and be seen as the mark to have until it gains the active support of its full membership – not just the token few. Once this happens then the bar can be raised and, with it, the reputation that it needs to become the first choice for potential security solutions buyers.
Can we afford, in financial terms, to stretch our service offering? Well, that’s another story in a period when I am witnessing some absurd cases of contracts being ‘bought’ that will do nothing to improve our industry’s standing. The bottom line is that if we want to do better and improve our image in the wider business community something will have to give.
By financially strangling ourselves, we will never be in a position to allow that to happen. The end result will be the continuance of long hours, low pay and the ultimate consequence of high staff turnover. This is not what the SIA envisaged through regulation when it anticipated that individuals and companies would prosper as a result of the 2001 Act.
Stepping outside of the norm
In conclusion, what’s the answer? Well, some of us are going to have to be brave, step outside of the norm and challenge the way we do things. I applaud companies that support the Working Time Directive and those that want to improve the Terms and Conditions of their staff. If, however, the majority persist in delivering the ‘same old, same as’ then we will continually swirl around the bottom of the barrel not being able to raise our profile, service offering and remuneration for our people. This results in us continually kidding ourselves into a position where we don’t really want to recognise the truth.
Will the buyers care? Some will, but others who lead their selection process through the pound will not. Sad, but a fact of life. If this remains the case then it tells us we must all personally become ‘the instruments for change’ and break this mould. However painful that process may be – and it will be.