If structured correctly, and adopting a multi-tiered approach, the Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) could assist in addressing the challenges referred to by the Security Industry Authority’s (SIA) chairman Baroness Ruth Henig at the University of Leicester Conference (‘The SIA’s Changing Agenda’, SMT, June 2007, pp28-30).
For my part, I believe the soon-to-be-established ACS Strategy and Standards Forum – which “will discuss and propose how and when standards should be raised on a progressive basis” – could act as the springboard for transformation in establishing broad consensus on the way forward for the industry. By raising standards within the ACS, it would provide a framework for industry self-improvement, at the same time confining poor commercial and operational practices to the scrapheap once and for all.
Acceptance as the industry standard
Membership of the ACS has grown since its inception in March 2006 to 529 Approved Contractors (as at 1 September 2008). The take-up of the ACS demonstrates its acceptance as an industry standard, not only in all licensable sectors, but also across all sizes of business (as illustrated in the statistics published by the Regulator).
On 31 July, in the micro category (companies with up to 10 employees) there were 76 companies listed, representing 15% of the total. Small companies (with anything from 11-25 employees) numbered 145 (that’s 28% of the overall total).
Medium-sized organisations (those boasting 25-250 employees) make up the bulk, 238 of them having passed the SIA’s Terms and Conditions to join the ACS Register. They represent 46% of the total. 59 large firms employing over 250 people account for 11% of organisations who have been ‘passed fit’.
The Approvals by Sector figures also make for interesting reading. By the same date, there had been 864 such approvals across seven industry sectors, with the statistics reading as follows: Cash-and-Valuables-in-Transit 12, close protection 12, door supervisors 96, key holding 188, Public Space Surveillance (CCTV) 76, security guarding 473 and, last but not least, vehicle immobilisers with 7.
Why have companies joined?
There are several reasons as to why companies have joined the ACS, including the benefit of the Licence Dispensation Notice (allowing officers whose licence applications are ‘in progress’ to be deployed to site), customer requirements or a desire to have an accredited industry standard.
One constant debate centres on whether the ACS standard is too low or too high. An indication of the possible answer lies within a measurement of the ‘scores’ of all ACS member companies released by the SIA.
The Regulator explains how the ACS scoring system works on its web site: “Meeting exactly the required achievement level results in a zero score. Zero represents a successful outcome – the ‘pass mark’. A performance above the required level results in a +1, +2 or higher score depending on how far above the required level actual performance is. A performance below the required achievement level results in a -1, -2 or lower score. Currently, the theoretical maximum score that any supplier may achieve across all 89 indicators is +153. The lowest possible theoretical score resulting from self-assessment is -125.”
The SIA statement continues: “Approved Contractors must score zero or higher on every individual indicator and, therefore, all Approved Contractors will have a score between 0 (a successful score) and 153 (the theoretical maximum score).”
Examining the ACS scores provided by the SIA (as at 30 April this year), there’s a clear indication that while achieving the ACS standard, there are only approximately 117 companies who have achieved a score of more than 51 out of a possible 153. In other words, 75% of the ACS companies scored 50 or less.
No incentive to improve
The scores demonstrate that while there’s clearly room for vast improvement in the performance of ACS companies, there’s obviously little or no incentive for them to better their scores. Infologue.com believes that less than ten companies achieved scores in excess of 100. This begs the question: ‘Has the ACS improved standards in the industry since its inception, or is it a voluntary minimum requirement for operating a business in this sector?’
If judged solely on the uptake rates for the scheme then the ACS has indeed raised the standards bar, but if individual score results are examined its degree of success is questionable due to the lack of incentives on offer for improving standards once a company is registered.
There’s clear evidence that the Regulator will take action and withdraw approvals where it deems necessary. There are 11 examples of the ACS certification having been withdrawn since inception. Seven approvals remain withdrawn – SOS Security PB, Doall 2006 Limited t/a RAS, Network Securities (UK), Pro-Guard Protection, Security Response Services, Allied Guarding and Patrols and Stealth Security (Stealth Security Services 2003 Ltd).
The widespread acceptance among buyers and the robustness of the ACS standard makes it inconceivable that customers would hire a company without it. However, the difficulty with the current structure is that end users have no knowledge of the associated scores attained for companies to be a part of the ACS (including the ability to achieve higher scores).
Not the complete picture
While ACS companies are assessed annually and their performance against the required levels within the standard may be measured numerically, such data can be confusing to end users. Also, it doesn’t allow companies to be measured equally against a set standard, which means that any given security operation could be strong in one area of the ACS measurements and weak in another.
Infologue.com is of the opinion that even if the end user were aware of the scores, this doesn’t reflect the full performance picture. On top of that, the current ACS standard doesn’t provide a meaningful differentiator for security solutions providers to recoup their substantial investment in achieving higher standards.
In order to motivate companies to consistently raise their standards, a more effective way of presenting the current ACS standard model needs to be introduced, with the addition of improved standards in certain areas. This might be achieved by replicating the industry-accepted National Security Inspectorate (NSI) model of having three ‘medals’ (Gold, Silver and Bronze). This creates separate performance measurement levels within a single operating standard.
I’m not suggesting that the actual standards subscribed to by the NSI should be used, rather the concept of three tiers – capturing those companies who pass, achieve a higher standard and those attaining an excellent standard. The three levels would then allow companies to consistently raise their standards within the ACS, thus creating clear differentiation for clients in the marketplace.
Development of the ACS standard’s highest level must realise a high performing service industry benchmark equivalent to the best security sectors in the world. It should be designed to transform the UK security industry into a career-based, mutually profitable one for all interested Stakeholders.
Seeking to improve standards
Over the past few years there have been initiatives – such as The Contract of Substance (‘The Contract of Substance’, SMT, April 2002, pp20-23) – which have sought to improve working conditions and standards.
Current initiatives include the Security Management Today/Infologue.com Editorial Campaign Make The Change and the NOCN-backed qualification that is The Security Practitioner (the latter affording the frontline security officer an opportunity to obtain a formal Level 2 qualification). Such initiatives embody the direction in which our industry should be heading.
There’s a strong argument to suggest that it would be difficult – or even impossible – for most security companies to achieve the highest level of performance on all of their contracts. There must be a case for allowing companies to achieve the highest level of the ACS standard on a contract-by-contract basis. By creating clear blue water between each level of the standard, it would allow companies to differentiate on their offerings, provide personnel with the opportunity to carve out a genuine career and achieve the SIA’s objective of raising standards.
Independent annual review
The SIA is required to facilitate an independent annual review of the ACS – conducted for the period March 2007-February 2008 by the Office of Government Commerce (OGC). The OGC is an office of Her Majesty’s Treasury responsible for improving value for money by driving up standards and capability in procurement.
In addition to proposing a tiered approach to the ACS, Infologue.com also suggested to the OGC research team the establishment of the aforementioned ACS Strategy and Standards Forum. This proposal was accepted by the Regulator.
If configured effectively, the Forum could be the ideal vehicle for examining ideas that might lead to the ACS becoming a catalyst for genuine transformation of the security sector into a vibrant one. This would benefit all Stakeholders, at the same time increasing public confidence in the industry.
Importantly, to achieve this vision top level industry buy-in and continual involvement would be required. Is that going to happen? This is the $64,000 question.
It’s time for the rhetoric to become reality.