If you want security, you shouldn’t just buy hours

Why the security industry needs new service models

The security industry is a labour-intensive sector. It will remain so. Nevertheless, it is worth asking whether the way in which security services are currently predominantly put out to tender, costed and managed still meets the requirements of tomorrow.

Many tenders describe in detail how many security staff are to be deployed, at what times, and in what roles and with what qualifications. Whilst this facilitates comparison, it also means that security is often defined in terms of the resources required – and consequently in terms of hours worked.

Yet a client does not actually wish to purchase hours. They want their company, staff, buildings, facilities and processes to be reliably protected. At first glance, this distinction may seem trivial. For the future development of security services, however, it is not.

From Staff Deployment to Security Objectives

The requirements for corporate security have changed significantly. Threat landscapes are becoming more complex, regulatory requirements are increasing, and companies must enhance their resilience whilst remaining cost-effective. Added to this are demographic changes and the growing difficulty in recruiting sufficiently qualified staff.

Responding to this exclusively by deploying additional security staff will, in the long term, be neither economically nor staffing-wise feasible. Therefore, at the outset of a security concept, greater emphasis should be placed on the question: What security objective is to be achieved?

For a site, this may mean preventing unauthorised access, detecting incidents at an early stage, intervening within defined timeframes, and being able to trace how an incident was handled at any time.

Only then should a decision be made as to which combination of personnel, technology and organisation can best achieve this objective. To achieve this, a company does not necessarily have to maintain a round-the-clock staff presence at every location. What is crucial is that the security solution operates 24/7 where continuous protection is required – for example, through the coordinated interplay of staff presence, technical systems, control centres, intervention and clearly defined processes.

Technology is not an end in itself

Video analytics, smart sensors, digital access control, control centre solutions, drones and robotics now open up possibilities that were barely feasible, either technically or economically, just a few years ago.

However, the crucial question is not which technology is available. What matters is which problem it solves.

An additional sensor does not automatically increase security. A camera alone does not prevent an incident. Nor does the deployment of a security robot in itself constitute a security concept. Effectiveness is only achieved when technology, processes and people are interconnected, and it is clearly defined what happens following an incident report.

Who receives the information? Who assesses it? When is intervention required? Who decides on escalation? And how quickly must this take place? Ultimately, it is these questions that reveal the quality of a security organisation.

Technological progress offers a great opportunity in this regard. Routine tasks can be supported by technology or automated. Qualified security staff can focus more on activities that require experience, communication, assessment and decision-making skills. In the long term, this will also change the job profile.

Security must become more measurable

With new security concepts, the way in which quality is assessed must also change. An employee’s presence is easy to measure. However, this initially only indicates that a contractually agreed post was filled. It says far less about the effectiveness of the security service.

A modern performance model should therefore take further criteria into account, such as response and intervention times, system availability, the quality of incident handling, compliance with processes, qualification levels, inspection rates or audit results. What is crucial are a few meaningful KPIs linked to the respective security objectives.

This shifts the perspective. It is not just the question ‘Was the agreed service provided?’ that is decisive, but also: ‘Was the agreed level of security achieved?’

Greater responsibility requires greater scope for action

Anyone expected to take responsibility for a result must also be able to influence that result. This is precisely where one of the challenges of contract award models lies. If a specification already sets out every item, every staffing period and every procedure in detail, there is little scope for the security service provider to contribute their experience to the design of the solution.

Through their work at a wide variety of locations, security companies possess a wealth of experience. They can see which processes work, where technology can be used effectively and where a human presence remains essential. This knowledge should be incorporated into security concepts.

However, this presupposes that the role of the security service provider also changes: from a provider of a defined number of working hours to a partner who takes responsibility for the effective functioning of a security solution.

A new understanding of partnership

The transition from an hourly model to a security model can only succeed if we work together. To achieve this, both sides – the client and the security service provider – must be prepared to evolve traditional roles. The client defines its security objectives, risks and quality requirements. The security service provider contributes its operational experience, works with the client to develop a suitable solution, and takes responsibility for its implementation and ongoing development.

Such a partnership requires trust, transparency, measurable quality and a willingness to seek better solutions together.

This does not mean that the traditional ‘security hour’ will disappear. There will still be sites and tasks where a permanent staffing presence is necessary and sensible. However, the ‘security hour’ should no longer automatically be the answer to every security requirement.

The lowest hourly rate does not constitute an economically viable security concept

Security services are under economic pressure. This applies to clients as well as service providers. Precisely for this reason, it is insufficient to assess cost-effectiveness solely on the basis of the price of a single hour of security.

A technology-assisted solution may initially require higher investment but can be more cost-effective and effective over its lifetime. Conversely, a human presence may be the better solution where technical systems