ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½

The official launch of the Security Industry Authority (SIA) on 2 April ('From aspiration springs reality', SMT, May 2003, pp20-26) again reinforced this point. Security industry regulation and the aims of the Authority are strongly supported, but many industry commentators have reservations with regard to the actual implementation or 'reality'.

Many of the questions raised both during the main presentations and the debating sessions that followed at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre warranted a sympathetic hearing. Some of the figures used were frightening, though. For example, a company that continually struggles to meet its contractual commitments – as many do – would not welcome losing anything between 20% and 40% of its workforce because of licensing. Even those who are in the fortunate position of having a surfeit of labour would struggle if they were to lose even 10% of their key staff.

Training for security officers
The suggestion of a four or five-day initial course is nothing new. Many years ago when I worked for a large security provider, all of the staff had to complete a four-day introductory training course. However, at that time we had the 'Cream of the Crop' as far as the officers were concerned, and a market that was prepared to pay for the training.

Now the situation is quite different. There's mounting pressure from buyers to keep prices low, while the educational standards of entrants can best be described as mixed.

Having to pay between £150 and £190 for a three-year licence would terrify the majority of security officers. For the average officer in UK plc, their pay is spent long before they receive it. Not because they are wasteful or frivolous, but because they need every penny they can muster to live on. Those of us who've worked in the manned security sector will have experienced telephone calls from good officers, saying that they've no money for either petrol or public transport in order to journey to work... I repeat: a good officer who's neither wasteful nor frivolous.

Setting aside a "couple of quid" each week in the lead up period to officer licensing is a nice, middle class idea. In the manned security industry, though, it just doesn't wash. The increase in the National Minimum Wage will be spent long before it is earned, while money put aside will be "borrowed" out of sheer necessity.

The current concentration on – and fascination with – contractor turnover should now be seen as yesterday’s method for evaluating the quality of service delivery. In the new era of guarding, profit will come from motivation – in un

Sharing a common goal
Most right-minded people in the industry are fully supportive of the SIA, and anyone else who's doing their level best to raise standards. It's going to be a painful transition process, and there'll be many casualties along the way – not just involving officers but also the managers and, indeed, guarding companies who insist on living in the past.

If there's an observation to be made here, it concerns the integration of technology with manned security. Security is – and always will be – about people. We employ people, we help people and we work for people. Technology enables us to free-up the human element where necessary, improve efficiencies and better the standard of service delivery. At times technology will replace part of the human element, but never entirely – because at some stage someone has to react to a situation.

An intruder detection system informs us of a change of status. CCTV will allow us to watch that change. Access control provides a barrier, and can delay the impact. What none of these systems can do is respond. Only a human being can do that. In our industry one hopes that the person responding is highly trained and motivated. As a result, the potential threat and losses arising from this change in status may be severely limited or even prevented.

Single solutions no more
We are on the verge of a wholesale change, this time moving away from single solution providers. A combined security solution doesn't mean less profit, nor does it mean a less effective service. Quite the opposite, in fact. The right technology will enhance the service, aid detection and provide a greater deterrent over a larger area. A better paid, motivated and trained response officer will require less management and direct supervision, and make a bigger net contribution to the company's profits. Not only this, but some systems and maintenance contracts may even make a monthly contribution to the bottom line.

For an industry that, in some ways, is bogged down in wage rates and contributions, this change is indeed quite radical. Technology providers are well used to selling the service and not the price. The competitiveness and perceived status of manned guarding has meant that price and not service is the major factor affecting contract awards, irrespective of what some major buyers may say.

To my mind, the combination of technology and people will benefit the end user and the service provider – and go some way towards restoring the latter's battered image.