|
Choosing who handles your security arrangements is one of the most important decisions you will make. Do you use a trusted in-house team or do you contract the work out to a specialist firm? The best option is often a mixture of the two writes Ian Jackson
Whether the task is to protect your company’s headquarters or guard its factories, issue passes or receive visitors, mount patrols or monitor alarms, search for explosive devices or X-ray the mail, the enduring question faced by commercial companies is do you employ an in-house security workforce or hire a specialist security company?
It’s a subject that generates much heated debate. Those favouring in-house security will usually quote factors such as loyalty, commitment, responsibility and accountability to support their case. Fans of contract guarding will generally focus their arguments on lower cost and reduced management input from the client. They will also point to the benefits of being able increase or decrease the size of the security function at relatively short notice. This is especially advantageous in industry sectors where the threat and thus the security requirement is volatile. contracting the function will eliminate panic recruitment or long and costly redundancy programmes.
But it is neither sensible nor practical to contract out a security service entirely. A company cannot hand over a security function lock, stock and barrel to a contractor and then congratulate themselves on offloading their security problems. Ultimate responsibility for risk management in any company rests with the board. A company cannot delegate or contract out accountability for its safety or security. It follows therefore that responsibility for assessing the threat and risk and setting counter-measures must remain in-house. Consequently, in any overall security arrangement, a client company must contribute some element of management. The critical decision concerns the amount of management effort a company needs to contribute to get the service it wants.
The right steps
Whether a company chooses to retain an in-house security service or goes down the contractor route, several steps are essential if a sound and effective operation is to be achieved. Examination of a failing organisation or contract inevitably shows that one or more of these steps has not been followed through.
 The task must be identified accurately and analysed thoroughly
Manpower numbers must be decided and a shift pattern agreed
Levels of supervision must be determined
Job descriptions must be written and appropriate staff recruited
Training requirements must be identified and training delivered
Specialist equipment, clothing and vehicles must be procured
Assignment instructions need to be prepared
Reporting channels and methods need to be agreed
Methods for measuring performance need to be developed
The most important step is the first one. Every aspect of the security task must be identified and defined in detail. The requirements should be based on the risk assessment but in some sectors may also be heavily influenced by legislation. A market survey of customers, both internal and external might also be used to help in assessing the level of security required. Security might be set up as a stand-alone function or it might be combined with other risk-driven tasks such as safety, fire, environment and business continuity into a total facilities management package.
Once the task has been defined, decisions can be made on which elements need to be in-house and which can be sub-contracted. Arrangements can vary widely. At one end of the scale is the part-time in-house manager who may be part of an operations, facilities or HR department. He or she might be controlling a full complement of subcontracted managers, supervisors and staff from a security company.
At the other end is the full time security manager supported by in-house supervisors and directly employed security staff. Companies must make their own judgements but should be wary of an assumption that an in-house solution will bring automatic advantages. For instance it is not necessarily true that an in-house department will allow more control over standards. The clear specifications necessary when work is contracted out are often better defined than in-house job descriptions. Similarly, the performance management required for an external contractor is frequently applied more easily and effectively than the performance management of in-house personnel. It is less personal and frequently more objective.
The decision will be further complicated by whether there is an existing in-house team. Where a trade or business is transferred from one employer to another, the employees might automatically become employees of the new employer with certain elements of their conditions of employment protected. It is beyond the scope of this article to cover this complex issue but readers who think they may become involved in such a transfer should seek professional advice.
Having determined the task, the manpower and resources need to be set. For an in-house team, all aspects of planning and implementation will be the responsibility of the in-house team. For a contracted-out function, significant input will be required from the client team but much of the time-consuming stuff like recruitment and training will be dealt with by the contractor. Similarly, once the contract is up and running, the majority of the tricky people issues like rostering, industrial relations, attendance management, sickness and discipline will be for the contractor to handle. It is important to remember that most security companies are skillful providers of warm bodies who can be trained to carry out any task, within reason. But they will not necessarily be conversant with security requirements, so it remains for the client to specify exactly what functions are required.
Although the people issues can be devolved to the contractor, it is important for the client company to take time to arrange a sound tender process. The style of the responses required should be specified quite clearly so that they can be compared properly and effectively. Be on the look-out for holiday premiums and bonuses that could bump up the overall price. Ask about any factors such as uniform provision that might reduce the employee’s take-home pay.
False economy
Going for the cheapest contractor, however tempting, will often prove to be a false economy, even if it satisfies the accountant and the purchasing department in the short term. Don't take everything in the tender at face value. Delve into any claims and assumptions that appear to be questionable. The cheapest option will not look such good value if, six months into the contract, the selected company proves to be useless, comes back for more money or worst of all, collapses. Pay particular attention to the recruitment and training processes, and the levels of supervision proposed. If the contractor claims to have a training facility, ask to go to see it. It is increasingly common for security companies to invest in quality accreditation and this can be explored during the tender evaluation.
It is common for security contracts to move around fairly frequently. This quite often proves to be because the client company has not invested sufficient time or interest in managing the performance effectively. Unrealistic and impractical demands serve no-one’s best purpose but it is a common story that the first time a contractor hears that his performance is unacceptable is when he is informed that the contract is being re-tendered. This gives him little or no time to find out what’s wrong, never mind put it right, and it is a sure bet that he will not retain the contract after the next tender.
It is important to develop a working relationship with contractors based on clarity of requirement and firm but fair insistence that they perform to specification. This means setting soft as well as hard performance standards that can be measured against a service level agreement. Soft standards include the behavioural elements of performance that can so often result in criticism from customers if they are neglected. Senior managers often draw conclusions about security companies based on the physical appearance, attentiveness or manners of staff on reception or the factory gate. Equally, over-zealous attention to duty can spark adverse criticism. Regular review meetings with contractors are just as important as team meetings with in-house staff.
An in-house security team requires much more direct management time. Loyalty and commitment are often reasons given for keeping the team in-house. This can be a benefit but only if the team is well managed. Poor management will have the opposite effect. All too often, the security team is seen by the rest of the company as the ‘awkward squad’ – a group that adds cost but little value to the bottom line. There are also some companies who use their security department as a dumping ground for their problem employees. Under-performers from other areas are moved into security because there is a perception that this will keep them away from the main business, whilst avoiding the need to manage them effectively. Avoiding these pitfalls and correcting such perceptions is a real challenge for an in-house manager. If successful, it can result in a highly motivated team that feels part of the company’s business effort. A contract security team also needs to feel involved with the client company, although their loyalties, understandably, should lie with their own company. It is not unusual for a dedicated contract security team to feel a high degree of ownership on behalf of the client company. This is particularly true where they are providing outward facing customer contact duties.
'Remember that most security companies are skillful providers of warm bodies who can be trained to carry out any task within reason. But they will not necessarily be conversant with security requirements, so it remains for the client to specify exactly what functions are required '
Conflicting issues
Sometimes companies avoid the in-house versus contract decision by employing a mixture of personnel. This can work but it is important to be aware of the potential problems with this arrangement. Pay rates are likely to differ between the in-house and contract personnel and will inevitably lead to dissatisfaction and even animosity between individuals. This can be avoided by separating staff levels between for example, supervisors and guards. Less easy to avoid is the issue of company benefits. Staff discounts, allowances and benefits offered to one group and not another in the same work environment create issues that are particularly difficult to manage without conflict. Offering client company benefits to contractor staff might solve the problem for the client but create one for the contractor who will have staff employed elsewhere who do not benefit in like fashion. In the majority of cases, a clear-cut separation usually works best.
In conclusion, there are benefits and disadvantages in either option and there is no universal right or wrong answer. It is up to the client company to decide what is best for them taking all factors into account. Although time can be saved by out-sourcing the people management aspects, sufficient time must be re-invested in accurate task specification, tender evaluation and performance measurement. Money can be saved by avoiding direct employment costs but should not be the sole driver in the decision and particularly not at the expense of quality. Whether in-house or contract, good security performance will depend in the final analysis on the way the task has been set up and the people are managed.
Ian Jackson is managing director of Airlock Aviation Ltd, a specialist aviation security company with several major airline clients in the UAE, Bahrain and KSA. For more information visit www.airlockaviation.com
|