Productivity within the Security Framework

Pocket

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]
 

Introduction

 

The question of balancing costs to productivity arises when there are security issues. The provision of protection of assets at a less costly price in order to achieve the set goals is defined as productivity within the security framework. If an organization should implement a proprietary security or contract security is the fundamental question.


Considering many issues in order to make a sound choice is part of the cost versus value factor. A comparison between in-house company security and contracted company security will be examined. A bank is an example of an organization that will be looked at to figure out the most appropriate security.


Discussion

 

One of the similarities between in-house and contracted security is the need for training. Training quality is fundamental issue regardless of the fact that security is provided either by contract security officers or proprietary in-house security officers. A security program that is uniquely set to achieve all the requirements of the site may be implemented in the case of proprietary in-house security service (Dempsey, 2007).


The adequacy of the training programs and the qualifications of the trainers are well known by the client. Training services for contract services on the other hand are conducted at an organizational facility with no supervision from the client. Videos that are produced on commercial terms help some firms while a few firms make use of a testing program used for determination of the potential officers understanding of training material.


One of the demerits of contract security is that problems of assimilating the corporate culture of the client may arise for contract services. Making less effort in having knowledge about company employees has been associated with contract security officers. In order to analyze situations that require security, there is need for knowledge and insight about the business process of a client.


A greater degree of security is possible for a government entity using proprietary security service since the activities as well as personnel are directly controlled by an organization (Dempsey, 2007). Quality, loyalty, permanency and stability expectation is one of the merits of an in-house security officer. Holding of training programs according to principles that conform to the requirements of an organization is possible.


Moreover, there is control of individual performance and evaluation according to the set policies and discipline by the company management. On the cost issue, it is evident that the amount of money spent on in-house security exceeds that spent on contract security. The major issues of concern however are productivity and performance. There is the perception that contract security officers are less dedicated to their duties compared to in-house security officers who are under the direct control of their client (Siljander, 2008).


Reverse outsourcing aimed at providing extra elements to an organization is the current trend among proprietary in-house security services. Security awareness, indoctrinations, security consultations and audits are few examples. Cost sharing is the other trend whereby there is invoicing of security costs back to the user with zero-cost being the ultimate goal. There is selling of security entities by some security organizations either on full-time or part-time basis.


Contract security system is convenient for directors since they do not have to spend a lot of time dealing with the challenges of controlling security officers. These officers can instead apply their skills in areas that are more noticeable for instance security analysis and consultation. Consequently, there is a decrease in security strain and increase in the company value since there can be delegation of the functions of security workforce to management staff of firms providing contract security services by these directors.


In majority of cases, there is a comparable cost for both a contract and in-house company budget. However, there is reduction of a company’s long-term expenses in contract security since there is an added protection as well as elimination of other costs. Recruiting, overtime wages, training, background check expenses, personnel for payrolls services and uniforms are other additional costs associated with in-house security budgets (Siljander, 2008).


To make sure that there is an up-to-date and comprehensive program, many organizations routinely entrust the security of the physical assets and employees to contract security providers. There is efficient employee and asset protection, saving money and giving companies a chance to devote their attention and resources to their main competencies through the use of a third party provider for security services.


The shifting from in-house to contract security is due to increased competition. A good example of a company is a computer-chip Company. The efforts of in-house security officers can not improve its position in the technology market. This implies that such a company needs to shift from in-house to contract security (Stees, 1998).


The other reason why firms are shifting from in-house to contract security is the increased liability. There has been a tremendous increase in benefit costs and payroll taxes. Dedication of leveraged resources to personnel who directly impact the business is necessary as companies continue to become leaner.


Moreover, the risk of employment claims from in-house personnel is gradually increasing as the society becomes more litigious. Unemployment, workers compensation, sexual harassment and discrimination are areas of risks that need to be considered. There is consumption of a lot of money and time in employment-related law suits that may result from in-house security (Dempsey, 2007).


There are additional costs in in-house security other than the officers wages. Vacation time, taxes, benefits, sick leave and many other tangible costs like unproductive management time are examples of additional costs associated with in-house security. Though there is an incomparable cost for in-house and contract security, the invaluable benefit of contracted security is the training resources, expertise and experience provided by a contract security firm.


The first step that a company has to take is making a decision to shift from in-house to contract security. The other important part of the process is choosing the most appropriate contract security company. A company that best fits the needs of a client should be chosen. Trust, mutual goals and communication are the bases for a successful relationship with a contract security provider (Siljander, 2008).


An example of an organization that will be examined in regard to the most appropriate type of security is a bank. Since a bank is an organization that is at a great risk for larceny and robberies, contract security is the most appropriate security to implement. Contract security guards should be hired by a bank so that they can protect its employees and customers. There are several economical benefits associated with hiring contract security guards at a bank. First of all, it is highly cost effective (Stees, 1998).


A bank has to pay security agencies for the services of the security guards by contracting with them. Security guards are dispatched by security agencies to business premises such as banks for a given time and the banks have to pay a given amount of money. Management of the money paid to contract security guards to cover for sick, days, holidays and vacation days is done by the security agency. Moreover, it is the role of security providers and not an organization to provide medical insurance and disability benefits to contract security guards. It is therefore clear that implementing contract security in a bank is cost-effective (Stees, 1998).


The other benefit is that of saving costs for hiring and training. Money, personnel and flexibility of operating without security guards while they are training are the resources required to train in-house security officers (Dempsey, 2007). However, a bank can be released from this obligation by hiring contract security guards. Under contract security, comprehensive training is provided by the security agencys money, staff and resources.


Conducting job fairs, placing advertisements and recruiting additional personnel are other necessary measures employed by security agencies. Bank administrators can save time as it relates to scheduling because security agencies are the ones that schedule work hours of contract security guards. The other benefit of hiring contract security guards at a bank is that there is increased safety. There is increased safety due to the fact that security agencies hire quality guards with high qualifications.


Moreover there are more diverse personnel and services ranging from site supervision, patrolling, armed guards, surveillance and loss prevention detectives. Monitoring and recording skills are also possessed by contract security guards. Organizations therefore have adequate preparations to handle incidents like medical emergencies by hiring contract security guards (Siljander, 2008).


In order to attain the mentioned benefits, there is an assumption that the bank chooses the most appropriate contract security agency. The other assumption is that there was establishment of objectives and goals for both the bank and the contract security agency prior to hiring contract security guards.


Moreover, it is assumed that the bank works with superior quality contract security agency that regards security as a team effort and shows dedication to ensuring the safety of assets and employees. The evidence of such commitment should be seen in the contract security agencys training programs, practices and the capability of customizing services so that they can meet the needs of an individual.


Conclusion

 

By considering the analyzing the costs and benefits, an organization can make a decision to choose either contract or in-house security. It is evident that contract security is more cost effective compared to in-house security. In-house security on the other hand has an advantage in that the in-house security guards are under the direct control of a company’s management team.


This means that there is a high degree of trust between the security guards and their employers. It is however clear that business premises such as banks that are at a risk of robberies and larceny should implement contract security services.


References

 

Dempsey, J. S. (2007). Introduction to Private Security. Cengage Learning

 

Siljander, R. P. (2008). Introducing industrial and business security and loss control. A primer for private security, business and law enforcement. Charles C Thomas Publisher

 

Stees, J. (1998). Outsourcing Security. A guide for contracting services. Butterworth-Heinemann

 

James Peter is the author and is associated with meldaresearch.com which is a global custom thesis writing  provider. If you would like help in essays, research papers, term papers and dissertations, you can visit BestEssaySite.Com


© 2018: BusinessCustomWriting.Com, All Rights Reserved | Innovation Theme by: D5 Creation | Powered by: WordPress