ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½

Outside of the main security trade journals, it has been somewhat unusual to see a great deal of coverage concerning security issues in the media at large. Save for those times when the industry has been painted in a very negative light, of course. Therefore, it has been both surprising and refreshing to see some good news about our profession in the UK's mainstream business press of late.

At the same time, the core issue of how end users might find and employ a high-standard manned security company has been pushed high up the corporate agenda as never before.

For those of us who pride ourselves on the quality of service we offer to our clients, this is both excellent news and a great opportunity. For all the other security companies out there? Well, frankly who cares about them? Those firms are the root cause of this industry's problems, not the solution.

The catalyst for these developments, of course, has been the Private Security Industry Act 2001 and the subsequent establishment of the Security Industry Authority (SIA). Whatever role the British Security Industry Association has had in establishing credible standards for our industry, it is ultimately the Act and its offspring body that has finally provided the political weight required for us to press ahead.

Defining the SIA's role
In her address at the official SIA launch back in April ('From aspiration springs reality', SMT, May 2003, pp20-26), chair Molly Meacher outlined the twin objectives that would define the role of the SIA. They were to raise standards across the industry, and ensure that all workers in the private security sector are fit and proper persons to hold positions of trust. Amen to that.

However, I believe it would be wrong to accept this as anything more than a means to an end. The role of the SIA is to create a framework in which exceptional firms can continue to set their own standards and prove to the client base exactly what may be achieved with a little will.

The SIA will help us to deal with the negative aspects of how we are perceived as security companies, and do away with the 'cowboy' contractors, our long hours culture and poor working conditions for many officers in the sector. What the SIA cannot do is help us to create an added value case for manned security provision. That is entirely down to the security companies themselves.

Added value and the client base
In common with many other strands of the service sector, we have all-too-often failed to prove to our client base that manned security is anything other than a necessary evil. A cost as opposed to an investment in the business. Like so many other business services operations, security guarding tends to be most visible when anything is seen to go wrong.

As contractors, we can help to overcome these problems by way of the quality of service we offer to our clients. In turn, this really comes down to the quality of people we employ on the ground. Technology is certainly not the sole answer to the problem. Impressive as shows like IFSEC may be, and regardless of developments in biometric access control systems and other technologies, added value (which is what clients will demand when the costs of licensing kick-in for real) will always come from people.

At Anchor Security, the management team – like many others throughout the country – is making innovative use of technology and management systems to piece together contracts that will transform the service levels we offer to our clients. However, we also pride ourselves that the major factor in any agreement is that the people we employ are a credit to both Anchor and our clients.

The role of the SIA is to create a framework in which truly exceptional firms can continue to set their own standards, and prove to the client base exactly what may be achieved with a little will... As responsible contractors, we must build on the legal f

A legislative framework is vital to our industry, but it shouldn't be used as a plethora for all ills in terms of how we deliver the service.

At one time or another, we've all had experience of poor service from other sectors that already have legal constraints imposed upon them (such as telecomms, insurance and the financial services sectors). As consumers, we have protections in place and are able to take action if providers are in breach – but does this raise our opinion of the service provider, or indeed the sector concerned?

No, it doesn't. As such, it becomes far more of an imperative that our industry recognises the need to deliver good, robust service regimes as a matter of sound business practice, and not merely 'wave the legislative flag'.

A collaborative approach
In the future, relationships with customers will need to be framed in a collaborative approach such that we might deliver the required service levels and security regime. Security service providers that are able to focus on customer relationships are able to communicate these changes in an effective manner while remaining flexible and open to changing end user needs.

All of which means we, as responsible contractors, must build on the legal foundations created by the SIA, and not attempt to hide behind them.

My 'wish list' for personnel issues goes some way beyond the vision laid down by Molly Meacher to encompass a better approach to the Working Time Directive (including compliant duty rosters and the like).

We are – and should be – aiming towards the zero tolerance of an unsatisfied workforce. And, of course, employing the right people means offering the right package in terms of pay, benefits and conditions.

We must look towards the long-term for the real benefits of our actions to be realised. That said, the very future of the private security industry depends on people like us convincing – and then proving to – present clients that we can deliver far more than they thought possible.