What an SIA speaker termed the success story of the approved contractor scheme so far – and where it could go further for ultimate success – was heard at the ASIS quarterly meeting.
Andrew Shepherd joined the SIA three years ago to do the ACS. He began by defining it as a ‘quality assurance scheme’ with unique characteristics. It was created as a result of legislation, the Private Security Industry Act. That is, it’s government-backed. It’s concerned with quality in relation to all stake-holders, not only the customer, whereas most quality schemes deal with the customer. He described costs as significant, but not prohibitive. The SIA has seen more than 750 applications. The scheme is voluntary, mainly to allow a standard to be set higher than if it was mandatory, with a minimum standard. He described ACS as pitched at a level that is challenging but achievable: “750 companies have taken the decision that benefits are likely to outweigh the costs and the vast majority have renewed that investment on an annual basis. It’s still relatively early days in the development of a new scheme like ACS.”
He went on: “It has been designed to be a bit different to the way that other audits and assessments might have been carried out.” An ACS assessor will talk to customers, employees, the local licensing authority for a door staff company; the local police, if appropriate – that is, what is on the ground, besides what is documented. As for the benefits, he spoke of ‘potential’ for reduced insurance premiums, speaking of having heard of 20 per cent reductions from brokers.
The high, 500-plus take-up of the scheme including by companies with no history of accreditations or quality schemes, is a vote of confidence, he said. The SIA is still getting ten applications a month. He rated as important the good practice sharing events, where typically 30 approved contractors in a room cover a topic, such as staff screening. “That has taken a while to get established; there was some initial resistance; but I think it is well established in the business excellence world that you always learn more than you give away when you get involved in this kind of sharing practice.”
Of the 13 withdrawn companies so far, Shepherd argued that compared with other quality schemes that is a lot of withdrawals; that is, the SIA is showing its teeth. Among the audience of 60, on a show of hands, were a dozen people at approved contractors. A question from the floor was: what was the cause of the 13 withdrawals? Andrew Shepherd replied that there were several reasons, such as failure to meet several requirements. This sometimes happened on the second assessment and not on the first. An organisation may ‘get their act together’ for a first assessment, he added, but cannot maintain it. Two companies had approval withdrawn because they misled the SIA in information supplied. As the scheme matures, decisions become easier, he said. (The list of withdrawals, like the list of approved, regularly updated, is on the ACS paart of the SIA website.)
Issues he raised: few ACS in door supervision, close protection, and wheel clamping. How to differentiate between more than 500 contractors (and the total has not plateau’d yet)? And; if standards have been raised, has this helped protect the public, ‘the ultimate aim’? He named the Cabinet Office and Ministry of Defence as among central government departments that have specified that security contractors must be ACS; but not all departments have, he admitted. “Clearly we can never do enough to ensure public and private sector buyers are aware of ACS and at least express a preference for it.”
