In-house? Contracted-in? Who wins?

10 Sep 09

Occupying what Master of Ceremonies Martin Smith described as ‘The Graveyard Shift’ – in other words, the final speaker of the day slot at just gone 5.00 pm – it’s fair to say that Nomura International’s corporate security manager (EMEA) Andy Williams knew only too well that only he separated a still attentive audience from drinks in the bar followed by a BBQ in the grounds of Missenden Abbey Conference Centre.

A few days earlier, Andy had volunteered to me that he was going to be quite controversial in his speech, so I for one was waiting with great anticipation to find out what he’d have to say on the pros and cons of in-house and outsourced security provision.

An interesting topic to say the very least, and one close to the heart of new SIA chief executive Bill Butler who paid very close attention to every word uttered.

A fully-fledged member of The Security Institute, Williams is uniquely positioned to have a definitive view on this issue having experienced both sides of the equation since he left the employ of the City of London Police Service back in 1995.

It was then that he took an in-house security role within the NHS before entering the contract security world as manager for a number of organisations, before eventually becoming operations director at City-based guarding solutions provider Lynx Security. He then spent a period of time at bundled services outfit OCS before, sadly, being made redundant in May 2008.

What does the contract world think of in-house?

With Mark Hanna having recently moved on from Nomura to head up the security operation at News International, Andy now finds himself back in the in-house fold. He duly kick-started his excellent presentation to The Security Institute’s great and good with a twinkle in his eye by asking the question: ‘What do contract security operations think of their in-house cousins?’

“For many contractors, they define the in-house world as some kind of Old Boys’ Club. The managerial positions are mainly taken up by ex-police and ex-military types. There’s a perception that it’s a Dead Man’s Shoes situation. In other words, you’ll not be able to attain the ‘hot seat’ for a very long time. For many, the in-house security operation is viewed as elitist, it’s obviously not regulated and there’s a feeling it’s also poorly trained and vetted.”

No punches pulled there, then, and if anyone was beginning to doze off at the back they were certainly now wide awake.

“With the boot on the other foot,” continued Williams in impassioned tones, “what does the in-house specialist think of contract security? Well, they view them as non-security specialists. A jack-of-all-trades and master of none, if you like. There’s a view that contract security staff are akin to cleaners and porters. They’re the poor relation.”

Williams added: “If we look at in-house first, the truth is that it is indeed perceived as an Old Boys’ Club. Many people firmly believe in that assertion. If you take my current role, I can – and necessarily do – fall back on excellent support structures that help me to do my job, but then again that’s how it should be. Security managers should never try to stretch themselves too thinly. Delegation will be the key to successful working.”

Is it all really smoke and mirrors?

That said, Williams does feel that much of the in-house role is “all about smoke and mirrors”. On that note, he commented: “We need to take responsibility for enhancing the skills sets available.”

Williams then cited BSIA chairman Stuart Lowden’s recent comments on SMT Online, in which the Wilson James supremo called for the industry to come forward with evidence of any circumstances where not licensing in-house has engendered a danger to the public.

As a reminder, Lowden stated: “The BSIA and its members have long been advocates of the regulation of the in-house sector of the security guarding industry. We feel that it was an anomaly for the in-house sector to be left out of the legislation, creating a two-tier system. Regulation would also bring the in-house sector up to the same level of professionalism as the contract sector through increased training and vetting.”

Is there a problem, though? It would appear so. “The sort of evidence for which the SIA is asking just doesn’t exist,” suggested Williams. “In any case, the focus of the Regulator’s argument as to why in-house licensing is now off the statute books for the time being is far too narrow. If in-house security operations are going to be regulated then this should happen for the right reasons – to enhance quality of service provision and standards in that arena.”

Now in full flow, Williams suggested that, from a training perspective, licensing has merely added a day of conflict resolution training for contracted personnel and not a great deal more. “I don’t think there’s any real value to be had from what’s in place,” he suggested. “When the decisions were being made about the scope of licensing, I believe the BSIA buried its head in the sand. As an industry, we missed out on a fabulous opportunity to define a real and meaningful standard. A benchmark behind which everyone could fall into line.”

For Williams, licensing was introduced by a Labour Government that, at the time, found it politically expedient to contemplate such a move.

Vote winner among the uninitiated

That’s a theory worth exploring. When the Private Security Industry Act emerged, crime was at unacceptably high levels – nothing much has changed there, then – and David Blunkett was championing his PCSOs (aka The Plastic Bobbies) with all the gusto he could muster. Incidentally, PCSOs are another of Andy's pet hates but that discussion is for another day.

Perhaps the Labour Party spin doctors thought that if they addressed miscreants like dodgy wheel clampers and less-than-perfect door supervisors then, surely, that could only prove the theory that a mass clean-up operation was on the cards. It’s a good vote winner among the uninitiated.

Williams then commented on the major differences between in-house and contract in terms of the nitty gritty of the security role itself. “In-house is predominantly a functional operation, with the manager and his or her team broadly developing and implementing defined policy and procedure. Contract security management, though, is mainly community focused and pretty much all about delivering pre-defined services within a budget.”

I would wholeheartedly agree with Williams’ next assertion, namely that many contract guarding solutions providers have a tremendous amount to offer the client. “My time in the contract sector was bereft of any client who really wanted an opinion from me, despite all of my experience,” sighed Williams. Smoke and mirrors, anyone?

One suspects there are many managers in the contract sector who are nodding their head in sage agreement, but if this is the scenario it’s little surprise given the way in which solutions providers are constantly beaten up on price by bean counters from the Procurement Department..

Benefits to be had from being commercially aware

Now that he has found himself in the role of poacher-turned-gamekeeper, Williams believes that Nomura International will be the immediate beneficiary of everything he’s learned. “I’m commercially aware. If they put their hand on their heart, I’m not too sure all in-house managers can really say that.”

Accentuating the positive, Williams – who’s also a committee member of ASIS Internatiional’s UK Chapter 208 and serves on the Finance and General Purposes Committee of The Worshipful Company of Security Professionals – is adamant that the recession could (and should) be a defining moment.

“It’s an opportunity for all of us to drive forward the importance of security to the business. Plenty of organisations are being forced into losing headcount. Where that occurs, responsible security managers ought to be looking at situations in which members of their team can help plug the gaps and make a difference by voluntarily taking on suitable additional roles.”

In general, Williams suggested that security managers should appreciate what they have just now. “There are not a lot of vacancies out there, believe you me,” he shrugged. “Before I joined Nomura I spent the best part of 12 months out of full-time work for the first time in my life. I was forced to use my old HGV licence and go back to being a long-distance lorry driver. Mind you, that period did allow me to improve my decorating, tiling and kitchen fitting skills,” he said with a wry smile.

“In-house security managers should negotiate hard but be fair with their contracted solutions providers," added Williams on a far more serious note. "Remember that they want – and need – to make some money, too. They’re going concerns, after all. Allow them to generate that money. In the long run, that will make life easier and more beneficial for the client.”

Disgruntled or disaffected employees

Williams did make a very good point about managers keeping a close eye on those employees who may be experiencing difficulties in making ends meet during these troubled times. “Always be aware of their behaviour. They may well turn to some form of theft.”

Speaking about the threat from disgruntled or disaffected employees, readers would do well to keep abreast of the PREFIT initiative recently launched by KPMG and other interested partners, and supported by SMT Online (see the dedicated link on the right hand panel of this page).

On this occasion, MC Smith was only allowing a couple of questions due to time constraints. I had thought of several. For example, if some or many in-house security operations really are all about this ‘Black Art’ scenario and defined by smoke and mirrors, what happens when the manager brings in a consultant to solve his or her problems?

A consultant possibly having no demonstrable acumen for the task at hand save for their contacts book generated from days of yore in the police service?

Cynics might well refer to that as the blind leading the blind, which could of course spell disaster for the host organisation.

No heads above the parapet

As for the SIA demanding evidence that would persuade the Government to licence in-house staff, what in-house team is going to stick its collective head above the parapet and admit to offering a service deemed to be somewhat below Best Practice standards?

They’re not going to, are they? For a start, the whole smoke and mirrors bubble would be burst. Potentially at least, it may be a discovery that means heads might roll.

I definitely agree with Andy when he states that one day for conflict resolution training is not enough. It’s nowhere near enough, and can only be concerned with broad brush tuition at best.

Let me leave you with this thought. Until licensing reared its head, the in-house security operation was seen as the exemplar. I think everyone would concur on that statement. Now that its contracted cousin has been vetted and screened, trained and licensed to an accepted Government standard, has that notion been turned on its head?

Do members of the contracting fraternity now enjoy the upper hand?

Get the latest stories first with info4security's newsletters: Click to signup

Post and bookmark this story at the following sites:

What is this?

del.icio.us	Digg	Reddit	Google	Newsvine