Services that really add value

[Mr. Chaple]

One big trend in contract security is the idea of value added services. Usually these consist of activities that have nothing to do with security (i.e. janitorial, valet,). I find this repulsive. I do not feel that these jobs are beneath me or anyone else, there is not such thing as being too good for an honest job. I just feel that security officers are supposed to be proffesionals and should be performing duties related to their proffession. I do, however, favor expanding the duties of security officers beyond "keeping an eye on things." I also feel that the more we do for a client, the more respect we will get and the higher pay we can expect. I also think that covering more aspects of the clients security/safety can help streamline their protection, thus lessing confusion/red tape. My question to all of you is: what kind of security related services should companies be offering?
A few that have come to me include:
Fire extinguisher checks/maintenance
Reception (I currently perform this task, and am extremely grateful for it)
Alarm maintenance
Key, I.D. Access card production
Pre-employment Background checks + Investigative reference checking
Red Teaming
Threat assessments
Book Checking
Inventory
I know these are often done by security staff, but is seems very rare outside of proprietary security.

[N. A. Corbier]

Can a contract security provider really perform background checks and investigations without a private investigator's license?

I think this is why some firms do it in house, a third party company that performs investigations needs a PI license, just like a third party company that performs guard services needs a security license.

[hrdickinson]

Can a contract security provider really perform background checks and investigations without a private investigator's license?

I think this is why some firms do it in house, a third party company that performs investigations needs a PI license, just like a third party company that performs guard services needs a security license.

I think it depends on the state.

[HotelSecurity]

To those of you who don't think checking fiore extinguishers is part of your job, you better hope like heck that the person whose job it is has been doing it if ever you need to use one. The Montreal Fire By-law (probably from NFPA recommondatioons) say that fire extinguishers have to be visably inspected daily. As they get tampered with a lot in hotels my staff are required to check them evry patrol.

[Bill Warnock]

To those of you who don't think checking fiore extinguishers is part of your job, you better hope like heck that the person whose job it is has been doing it if ever you need to use one. The Montreal Fire By-law (probably from NFPA recommondatioons) say that fire extinguishers have to be visably inspected daily. As they get tampered with a lot in hotels my staff are required to check them evry patrol.

HotelSecurity if you are going to be held accountable for these inspections, commit those by-laws to memory. Several NFPA publications you might peruse 10, Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers; 72, National Fire Alarm Code; 101, Life Safety Code. Make sure your corporate counsel is aware of these extra safety duties. If you have to seek advice, route your written requests through your leadership and counsel. Don't wind up having to eat a pig's breakfast!
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[HotelSecurity]

Actrually Bill the City By-Laws supersede the NFPA "recommendations" although most by-laws come from them. And I do know the by-law. BTW when I was the Fire Marshal of the Windsor Hotel in Montreal I was a member of the NFPA. Now it is too expensive.

The visual inspection is to verfy that the extinguisher is where it is supposed to be. That there is nothing blocking it. That in all but the CO2 types, the pressure is within the operating range, that the seals are in place on the CO2 tyoes & that there is no damage. We don't do the monthly offical inspections such as weighing the CO2s.

I don't think we need legal advice to do what we are doing.

Neil

[craig333]

Fire exinguisher checks are just something I do automatically, without being asked. I wish I could check the fire hoses. A couple have been used and I have no way of knowing if they were properly drained and dried.

[Andy Taylor]

My staff regularly checks the fire equipment.

Not to sound stupid, but what is Red Teaming?

[N. A. Corbier]

I was wondering that myself.

I would make a blanket statement such as, "security personnel should know and regularly check the fire suppression equipment, and note the findings on the daily log," but I have actually worked sites where the client didn't want the guards caring about or touching the fire extinguishers. The client will put the fire out. The guard will just write in his little book that the client did so, and not worry about it.

When a fire did occur, the client personnel ran out without even sounding the alarm. The Guard on duty wrote, "FIRE!!!!!!" in huge letters in the log book, forgot everything he was supposed to do, and ran too.

It was funny to come onto that post that night for the mid shift, and read that in the book. Next day, we were to check fire suppression equipment once a shift, and maintenance was no longer our "boss."

[Mr. Chaple]

At the post I currently work we do check and maintain the fire extinguishers, but, I have worked many posts where we were not expected to do more than check the dials whilst on patrol. Also on most sites I have worked it was not security's job to have the empty ones refilled/replaced, nor did the person who's job it was replace/refill them until after his own scheduled check.
As to background investigations, in Illinois, any PERCed employee may perform the duties of a private investigator as long as their company has a licensed private investigator holding a position of licensee‑in‑charge, and the employee has passed a state certified PI training program.
Red Teaming is slang for a particular type of security testing. This invovles members of the security staff intentionally trying to breach security to test it's effectiveness. I use to have a Captain who would do this often. He would sneak on site during third shift to see how lont it would take us to find him.

[Mr. Security]

We would check FEs and eyewash stations. Checking an extinguisher was a matter of making sure the pressure was good, the hose clear and not damaged, no significant rust or dents, and a dusting. Some states require a license to do other maintenance.

These value-added services are OK, as long as there is sufficient coverage from other security personnel to handle the primary functions required of security. This is where most companies "drop the ball," IMO.

[SecTrainer]

There is a very interesting article in the latest (September 2007) issue of "Security Products" magazine entitled "Get To Work", which discusses the role that security monitoring systems such as CCTV can play in helping companies improve their operations, as opposed to being strictly focused on security issues. Surely, this is the ultimate in "value added" when you can help your company/client improve their business processes!!

For instance, take the CAM-V, which can be installed in 5 to 10 minutes at a construction site to provide a live feed of activity on the site. Sure, there's an obvious security application here, especially at night when everyone's gone home from the site...but what about during working hours? If you turn around and think about this in terms of process monitoring, you can see lots of applications, ranging from safety violations (people without their hard hats) to recording the delivery of materials and supplies.

Install a CAM-V at several sites, and one project manager can keep an eye on all of those projects while he's in the office taking care of the administrative aspects of his job.

As another example, you install cameras to watch the register and the other "security points" in a pizza restaurant...but what about installing a couple of Web cams so the manager can watch the production area when he's not there?

Finding such opportunities can be as simple as thinking about security systems in a different way...meaning, asking how the information provided by the system could help answer questions besides just "who accessed what, and when". Sometimes, the security system itself as designed strictly for security only provides some of the information, when a bit more thought would reveal that another camera or a bit more sophisticated system could be much more helpful with respect to this value-added application.

What operational efficiencies, etc. might be gained from data-mining the information that access control systems generate?

Knowing something about the full range of available information-acquisition, imaging and other systems is obviously very helpful, too. Knowing that INEX sells a portable license plate reader, for instance, suggests all sorts of possibilities with respect to parking facility management, such as the collection of overtime parking fees, etc.

Security is one of the most ubiquitous functions in many businesses, with both systems and personnel that operate throughout the organization in both a functional and physical sense. If the security program can contribute useful operational information, perhaps merely by thinking about security systems and procedures from that angle, you're talking about CEO's who should be easily transformed from reluctant to eager supporters of the security program.

[Bill Warnock]

SecTrainer I have preached for many years: Anything that interferes with the ability of any organization to fully fulfills its stated mission statement is a security concern. From watching the till to the parking lot, security has a role and "things" can be used as force multipliers.
Thank you for expressing and sharing your insight with the rest of the memberfs in this forum.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[Andy Taylor]

Security/Loss Prevention should be considered as "preventing ANY loss to the company" If security can monitor such things as HVAC systems, refridgeration units, etc. losses can be prevented by finding problems when they require a small, $5 part instead of a new HVAC unit a month down the road. If there is a food service area, why shouldn't security monitor things that the health dept would check on an inspection? this could not only prevent fines, but also the ensure the health and safety of patrons, thereby preventing lawsuits. As Mr. Security pointed out, these things should not interfere with more traditional security duties.

[Bill Warnock]

Security/Loss Prevention should be considered as "preventing ANY loss to the company" If security can monitor such things as HVAC systems, refridgeration units, etc. losses can be prevented by finding problems when they require a small, $5 part instead of a new HVAC unit a month down the road. If there is a food service area, why shouldn't security monitor things that the health dept would check on an inspection? this could not only prevent fines, but also the ensure the health and safety of patrons, thereby preventing lawsuits. As Mr. Security pointed out, these things should not interfere with more traditional security duties.

Andy, all these things are traditional security duties. We have suffered from managers and clients who want security to walk around with blinders on looking for flashing neon signs marked "SECURITY."
Enjoy the day,
Bill