ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½

In part, of course, this is due to the unique exemption clause which affords individual workers in the UK the right to opt-out of the 48-hour average weekly working time. That said, the European Commission is set to review this derogation clause in November, and it's still possible that pressure will be applied such that we conform with the rest of Europe by introducing changes sometime in 2004-2005.

The loss of this opt-out clause and the impact it will have on the manned security industry has of course been the subject of much debate, both within the pages of Security Management Today and indeed the industry at large. In particular, considerable angst has been voiced concerning exactly where the expected shortfall in labour – estimated by the British Security Industry Association to be as much as 20-30% – will come from by way of accommodating any new amendments.

Add-in the impact of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 – and Security Industry Authority forecasts that the number of currently employed security operatives who will not qualify for a licence because of past conviction records might be as high as 30% again – and it's easy to appreciate the enormity of the problem.

If they've not already done so, client organisations operating in the private sector as well as their guarding contractors need to start planning their future security needs and service delivery now, taking into account any possible changes in the law. There are several areas that are worthy of consideration.

First, check what you're committed to. Who carries the cost of change? Clearly, the biggest impact the Working Time Directive would have is on cost. Budgets would have to be reviewed whether security staff are outsourced or employed in-house.

If outsourced, there's a high probability that the end user's contract with the service provider is based on a 60-hour working week and contracted over a three-year period. If the contract has been agreed only recently, then some reference will probably have been made to costs associated with any changes to the 48-hour week. The contract is likely to include a fairly standard exclusion, something along the lines of: "This proposal is offered subject to any changes in conditions arising from legislation".

The most likely scenario will be that any increase in costs due to legislation – ie the reduction in permissible working hours – will fall on the employer and not the contractor.

You also need to ask yourself whether or not you can afford the change in working practices. Is the money available? In order to maintain the same levels of staff cover, additional officers will have to be employed because, with the best will in the world, guarding contractors will not be able to absorb the additional costs involved.

If it's anticipated that changes aren't going to be made in respect of how security provision is implemented and managed then budgets will have to be increased quite substantially. For some security managers, it may already be too late to bid for additional funds for next year.

Many businesses and selected manned guarding companies have already moved towards the improved working conditions that the Working Time Directive demands. As a result, they should see relatively little impact if and when the 48-hour working week becomes mandatory (other than a probable increase in attempts by competitors to headhunt their better members of staff).

Those that are not in the throes of planning for change should ready themselves for major difficulties, not just when it comes to finding the necessary funding but also in sourcing and retaining quality security operatives. As there's likely to be severe resistance to granting extra funding, planning now on how to provide equivalent or even improved security at the same cost is vital. The first step is to break down the objectives, and determine your essential requirements. For example, you'll need to provide the same (or better) level(s) of access and egress control over the same time periods. You'll need to offer a monitoring service for both asset security and staff safety (with less people). There'll also be a need for effective response to both incidents and customer concerns.

At all times, levels of security must be maintained such that they're commensurate with the risk and degrees of business development. An environment must be created that will minimise staff loss and/or turnover.

It’s commonly acknowledged that there are many associated benefits derived by security staff and their employers from a shorter working week, but it has also been recognised that the security officer’s role has to become more challenging

At this point, it may also be possible to identify roles or activities that might be transferred into other staff functions, or even discarded. If so, then a reduction in staffing levels is likely – but it will almost certainly not balance the shortfall.

It's also important to note here that, although electronic security systems play a valuable part in safeguarding buildings, their contents and members of staff, they're not always 100% effective on their own. They need to be viewed as an integral part of the overall security plan. Let's face facts – what's the value of a CCTV camera if no-one ever views the images it generates? Similarly, what good is an alarm signal if no-one responds to it?

Reviewing your access needs
Review the number of entrances and exits in use on site. Could they be reduced without adversely affecting the smooth flow of the business? Consider that question for the entire working spectrum. Do you really need to have three entranceways open 24 hours per day, or might that change when staff numbers are reduced? If you have both reception staff and security officers at the same point of entry/egress, are there periods when one party alone could effectively cover both roles?

Can you, for example, deploy a locked door system operated by the receptionist/officer after, say, 5.00 pm to save at least an hour per day on costs?

What physical and/or electronic controls do you have, or would you need to reduce the human presence? Full-height access control turnstiles, tube stiles and air-lock doors, etc have been available to end users for some time now. Indeed, even in the late 1980s one major manufacturing plant just north of London reduced its security guarding force by 17 officers (or 20%) simply by installing perimeter access turnstiles. And there was no reduction in site security standards, either.

If you're thinking of automating your access and exit controls it will almost invariably be cheaper over a five-to-ten-year period than maintaining 'human' controllers. However, security managers should remember that they need to consider more than just the initial cost and the eventual cost saving when looking at automatic access or egress control.

In essence, security managers must bear in mind the following:

• The corporate image: Will an automated entry system be in keeping with the company's image? Would it be acceptable for your clients to use an intercom when gaining entry? In many cases the main entrance will continue to require the human presence, but there are often other access points (staff only) that can be automated. It's usually the case that you can leave the main door open and uncontrolled, and place the access control into the working/meeting areas under reception control, thus maintaining the corporate image without the need for any security officers.

• The flow requirements: How many staff per hour will pass through the entrances/exits, how many visitors, wheelchairs and packages, etc? An access control system that allows in a wheelchair or person with a suitcase, say, will also allow tailgating. A single person entry turnstile or tube stile takes time to use (typically around five to ten seconds). If 50 employees arrive together, how long does the last one – invariably the chief executive – wait? Free flowing access systems will log in authorised personnel and alarm when others try to enter, but you'd still need the human response to deal with any such intruders.

• The structure of the automatic barrier: Can it be climbed over, manually forced open or climbed under? Will you need higher and more robust barriers, alarm sensors, anti-climb devices and monitoring cameras, etc?

• Reaction to any barrier being forced or crossed: If you were to totally do away with 'security' on site, who'll respond to any incidents? Do you have suitable (insured) staff on site who are willing and capable?

Thinking about company assets
If you were to take away security officer search procedures at the building exit points, would this increase the probability of theft? If you think it would, then you need to consider how you will identify items being removed. Let's accept the fact that it's common for major businesses to 'lose' anywhere between one and five laptops every month!

Thus, the removal of the deterrent factor and the actual physical detection service provided by security officer search procedures will need to be replaced. Can you reasonably place that responsibility with the contractors' supervisors? Do you need to price for asset tagging, or do you actually require the security officers back in place?

If you consider it appropriate to reduce the size of the security team on site, then you need to examine the safety service provided by your current team. Can this be covered by additional in-house staff who have been trained in First Aid? Might the maintenance contractor carry out fire protection equipment inspections? Will your current fire detection system regime discover the smouldering fire? If so, you may have a reduction option on your hands, but examine the costs. Any company will expect to be paid if they take on these additional tasks.

We all know of cases where in-house or contracted security have been found wanting after poor response to an incident, but there are many more cases where their immediate action has prevented escalation and injury or damage. Is this an area where you might be able to deploy members of staff rather than the security team?

Cost approvals relating to security
Unless 'The Board' is aware that they're facing truly awesome risks, any manager making a 30%-plus increase in budget is likely to be viewed with some suspicion.

Four major steps could prepare your Board of Directors for change:

• alert senior management to the required changes, and inform them that the most cost-effective solution is being investigated;

• identify the changes and physical or electronic means by which you'll be able to reduce the number of staff members required – not just for the transition to the 48-hour week, but along a decreasing scale over five years;

• establish an outline of capital and recurring (ie staff related) costs that would be incurred over this same five-year period;

• demonstrate to management that annual costs (over a five-year period) can be maintained at a reasonable level as growing systems reduce the headcount (in an ideal scenario with the cost in Year 3 onwards reducing below current levels).

These steps will need to be taken fairly quickly after the first alert, and you should be prepared to enlist professional help if your own resources are insufficient. While external consultancy carries a cost, it's a minimal one compared to the possible consequences of 'getting it wrong'. It's vital that both manning levels and the role of the security operatives – as well as systems needs – are accurately determined and designed.

If the system you eventually put in place leaves vulnerabilities in its wake, or costs begin to escalate, consider the consequences.

It's commonly acknowledged that there are many associated benefits derived by security staff and their employers from a shorter working week, but it has also been recognised that the security officer's role has to become more challenging – and further integrated within the host business – if a quality service delivery is to be achieved and maintained.

Within a better paid and more dedicated security industry environment, quality staff will be at a premium and, although money is critical, job satisfaction plays a major part in staff retention.

One of the major benefits of integrated security – by which we mean the incorporation of the human security element with the increased use of automated and remote monitoring system – is that the security officer manages and reacts rather than tries to actively operate everything. Event-driven systems no longer require an officer to peer into screens for hour after hour, but allow time for continual refinement of business security and staff skills.