Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Some observations

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Christopherstjo
    I stand corrected....

    I was recently speaking with my employer about the subject of "what the client wants" and the diferences between how various employer's react. My employer takes the position that if a client says they want a particular s/o assigned, he says no and surprising he has not lost any contracts when he says no.... Other employer's would do differently. The point being is that while the client may be the client, they are not the security expert and merely because they want something does not mean they are going to get it. In this respect, I suppose I am lucky in having an employer that actually thinks about "liability" rather than just passing the buck to their employee
    WARNING - LENGTHY POST: Estimated reading time 7 minutes.

    I think there's a critical point here that needs to be underscored, namely just what "contract management" entails when the security client makes a request (often as a demand) that is improper and should not be honored.

    A contract defines the legal terms, promises and boundaries of the client/agency agreement. But, the actual relationship between the client and the vendor is defined by the ongoing process of delivering services and ongoing communication between the parties. Contracts don't make relationships.

    When the bid has been awarded, you move from "contracting" to "contract management", which would be better called "relationship management" and in many ways it's no different from managing any other interpersonal relationship.

    The "noncontroversial" part of contract management involves the delivery of the services that are plainly required by the contract on the part of the agency, and paying the bill promptly when it comes due on the part of the client. Few contractually-based relationships are this simple, however.

    It is almost inevitable - especially in long-term, complex business relationships - that sooner or later the client will make a request that modifies, misinterprets, or flat goes beyond the terms of the contract itself. This is where the real art and skill of "contract management" (on the agency side) comes into play. What do you do with this request? To no small extent, this must depend on the agency's evaluation of the request. If it's a "one-off", minor deviation from the contract it would probably be honored, but what if it's not such a minor deviation?

    This brings us to the critical point that Mr. Cross makes, although I would modify it somewhat. The client, in most instances, is not expert in security matters. We have to throw in the qualifying phrase "in most instances" because there are certainly many clients who have their own security expert who administers the contract for the client. Such clients are merely outsourcing the "labor" or "manpower" aspects of the contract.

    Modifying requests by the client, especially one who has no security expertise, MUST be evaluated by the agency not only in terms of cost, capability, etc., or what we might call the "CAN we do this?" questions, but also in terms of the "SHOULD we do this?" questions - i.e., whether the request is good practice, whether the request would negatively impact other aspects of the security program, etc.

    Well said, Mr. Cross - and dead on the money. You are indeed fortunate if you work for a company where EVERY request of the client is not automatically honored on the theory that "the customer is always right". When it comes to customers who are purchasing complex "products" - whether accounting services or security services, we know very well that they are NOT always right, and sometimes they are more wrong than they are right, especially when their requests arise from motivations such as mere convenience, the desire to save money, etc.

    Sometimes the answer must be "No, we won't do that" in just the same way that lawyers, doctors, accountants, etc. must often decline to do what their clients or patients request - for their own good, or because it would only create more problems for them. No architect would agree to omit the rebar from a concrete slab merely because the client requested it.

    The art of saying "No" really means "saying no and making the client like it", which implies that you don't just say "No". You explain why you're saying no from the standpoint of how the request the client has made would damage their security program. The architect above, for instance, would explain how the client's request would violate building codes, but also would explain that the omission of rebar would cause the slab to fail and ruin the client's investment in the building.

    You never have to pursuade a client to be happy when the answer to their request is "Yes, we can do that". It's making them happy (or at least satisfied) when you must say "No, we won't do that" that takes real thought and "people-savvy", and this is why good contract managers are so rare.

    On that point, incidentally, one trick I've found very useful is not to flatly refuse the request, but to say "We'll certainly consider your request, Mr. Client. Let me run some numbers and I'll let you know what it will cost you." The minute a client realizes that there are no "freebies", and that there will be a $$price attached to his request, INCLUDING the cost of remedying whatever damage will be done to the security profile of the client by honoring the request, the request silently just disappears into the mist and you never hear the client mention it again...and you've avoided having to flatly refuse the request. Win-win.
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 05-12-2007, 01:06 PM.
    "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

    "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

    "There is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

    "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

    Comment


    • #17
      I will add this... my aforesaid statement was merely a rush job quick analysis that generalized everyone into one category... not intended but done notheless.

      Yes, there are corporations that have well-informed security experts working for them that oversee the security operations... but then, there are small residential apartments, mom and pop type of shops and so forth that do not and yet, believe their are the security experts and by virtue of paying for the services of s/o they are duly entitled to get anything and everything they want. For example, here in KCMO, Class A s/o's are authorized by the state to run DMV records and wants and warrants on private citizens we contact (the state provides us the computer, software and direct access into state databases to do this). Some clients of my employer want us doing this on the client's employee's and my employer says "no" because in the past he has found clients abuse this privilege we have extended to them. There is a lot of liability in running such records and while other employer's might throw caution to wind, mine does not because of the liabilities involved.

      As I told my employer... in every contract there are two main players and each has say in what does and does not happen in that contract and the services rising therefrom. Many security companies take the approach that whaterver the client wants the client gets no matter what liabilities are pawned off on the s/o and in effect, frequently the "warm body" approach is just a nice way of saying "you're the fall guy."

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by CorpSec
        From both lurking and reading posts and posting here I have seen that there are quite a few security personnel that want "more" More authority, more respect, more pay, and more equipment.

        I think this is where the "wanna-be" stigma comes into play. Very few of us are content with being warm bodies that merely observe and report even though the majority of security personnel are tasked with just that.

        It has taken me awhile to adjust to the observe and report role since it isn't really in my nature. But, once I came to the realization that you can't give people the security that you want to give them, you have to give them the security that the company culture and higher ups want I became much more content in my job.

        In past jobs I have been so frustrated that I really felt I couldn't do anything to provide "real" security to those at the site I was assigned. Learning to accept that they don't want real security makes things go so much smoother.

        The advice that I have for people is either learn to embrace your role as an observe and report officer or get into another Company, site, or line of work. If you aren't equipped and expected to respond to certain incidents, don't respond to them! Don't take on the liability of carrying items that your Company hasn't authorized since you are setting yourself up for the fall if you ever use it.
        Hit the nail
        Police Officer

        Experience: Bouncer, EMT, Theme Park Security, Money Transport, Armed Guard

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by SecTrainer
          WARNING - LENGTHY POST: Estimated reading time 7 minutes.
          If I had considered printing that out and reading it later, would you have added a "Paperwork Reduction Act" notice?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by wilrobnson
            If I had considered printing that out and reading it later, would you have added a "Paperwork Reduction Act" notice?
            No, but you reminded me of an actor who wrote this letter to a critic who had slammed his performance in the newspaper:

            ______________________
            Dear Sir:

            I am sitting in the smallest room of my house. I have your review before me.

            Soon, it will be behind me.

            Sincerely....

            ______________________

            Now, that's "paper reduction"!
            Last edited by SecTrainer; 05-13-2007, 12:58 AM.
            "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

            "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

            "There is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

            "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by CorpSec
              From both lurking and reading posts and posting here I have seen that there are quite a few security personnel that want "more" More authority, more respect, more pay, and more equipment.

              I think this is where the "wanna-be" stigma comes into play. Very few of us are content with being warm bodies that merely observe and report even though the majority of security personnel are tasked with just that.

              It has taken me awhile to adjust to the observe and report role since it isn't really in my nature. But, once I came to the realization that you can't give people the security that you want to give them, you have to give them the security that the company culture and higher ups want I became much more content in my job.

              In past jobs I have been so frustrated that I really felt I couldn't do anything to provide "real" security to those at the site I was assigned. Learning to accept that they don't want real security makes things go so much smoother.

              The advice that I have for people is either learn to embrace your role as an observe and report officer or get into another Company, site, or line of work. If you aren't equipped and expected to respond to certain incidents, don't respond to them! Don't take on the liability of carrying items that your Company hasn't authorized since you are setting yourself up for the fall if you ever use it.
              Well said.

              As I said before on this board, I've had the same discussion with fellow Campus Police Officers. I like the way my buddy (a former state trooper) said it to a new guy .. "If you want to be a municipal cop, Dallas PD is always hiring". I laughed when he said that. To me it's gospel truth.

              I think it makes more sense to work the job you want to, instead of expecting the world (and your employer or client) to bend to your desires
              ~Black Caesar~
              Corbier's Commandos

              " "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." ~Margaret Thatcher

              Comment


              • #22
                [QUOTE=Black Caesar]Well said.

                That sir is the reason I love my company. People come to us looking for more enforcement based security not just observe and report. Yes they are charged more but our clients realize they have the BEST in the area. I can say that 100 % having worked for or with other companies in the area. We routinely get calls from other security or LP in our areas to assist them because PD is too busy. We often get calls to businesses that are close to our properties becuase they know we area quicker then police.

                I even suggested having a Form in our cars that we can have a requester for service that is currently contracted sign as a temporary contract and then bill them for the service. Any ideas on this ?
                Robert
                Here endith the lesson

                Comment


                • #23
                  [QUOTE=Arff312]
                  Originally posted by Black Caesar
                  I even suggested having a Form in our cars that we can have a requester for service that is currently contracted sign as a temporary contract and then bill them for the service. Any ideas on this ?
                  I think the face value of such is a good idea... however ... I see many problems in getting paid later for services already rendered. Moreover, during a time of a crisis, one might argue that they signed the contract under duress and it could serve to give the s/o and company a black eye later in terms of their reputation. It could also serve to cause friction within the pd and that in turn could spill out into the field.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    [QUOTE=Arff312]
                    Originally posted by Black Caesar
                    Well said.

                    That sir is the reason I love my company. People come to us looking for more enforcement based security not just observe and report. Yes they are charged more but our clients realize they have the BEST in the area. I can say that 100 % having worked for or with other companies in the area. We routinely get calls from other security or LP in our areas to assist them because PD is too busy. We often get calls to businesses that are close to our properties becuase they know we area quicker then police.

                    I even suggested having a Form in our cars that we can have a requester for service that is currently contracted sign as a temporary contract and then bill them for the service. Any ideas on this ?
                    "Mutual aid" is a good idea, providing it's done right. There's tremendous liability here (and other problems as well) unless the client of the main service provider has previously agreed to the presence of officers from another company being on their property conducting security operations even in the smallest way.

                    There should be a mutual-aid agreement in place between the two security companies, to which the clients of those companies and all relevant insurance companies have signed on, with appropriate riders, etc. This agreement should specify what circumstances would trigger mutual aid and many other features about how this would "work" - who's in charge, what the secondary company can and can't do, and the like.

                    ...and, of course, all of this would need to be thoroughly reviewed and approved by the attorneys for all of the parties involved.

                    In this context, carrying forms in your car wouldn't work, as it could only be executed by a representative of the client who has contracting authority for the client. This is highly unlikely at night or on weekends, for instance. No representative of the "primary" security company would have the inherent legal right to bind the client (say, under the law of agency), absent specific grant of such authority by the client. And, going further, there obviously would be no one on site with authority to bind any insurance carrier - whether that of the "primary" or the "secondary" security service.
                    Last edited by SecTrainer; 05-14-2007, 01:00 PM.
                    "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

                    "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

                    "There is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

                    "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      [QUOTE=Arff312]
                      Originally posted by Black Caesar
                      Well said.

                      That sir is the reason I love my company. People come to us looking for more enforcement based security not just observe and report. Yes they are charged more but our clients realize they have the BEST in the area. I can say that 100 % having worked for or with other companies in the area. We routinely get calls from other security or LP in our areas to assist them because PD is too busy. We often get calls to businesses that are close to our properties becuase they know we area quicker then police.

                      I even suggested having a Form in our cars that we can have a requester for service that is currently contracted sign as a temporary contract and then bill them for the service. Any ideas on this ?
                      Sounds like they want free services. No company should be providing enforcement services without a signed contract which gives the employees of the company the authority to enforce rules or law on that property, as well as agent of the owner status.

                      "No, officer, we never told those guards they could do anything. They just came up here like Johnny Law and threw this bum out."
                      Some Kind of Commando Leader

                      "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Wow, I shuddered when I read the post about area LP and and security calling for mutual aid without prior contractural items being in place.

                        If I was the owner of your Company and one of my guys got injured while doing security work at a site that they really had no business being at, I wouldn't let that fly.

                        Plus, I am sure your owner has insurance covering his business and the actions of his officers. When the insurance company underwrote the policy, did they know that you guys did security work around town gratis? Do you think that they are going to want to pay a claim if your injured or if you injure someone while not at a contracted site?

                        I could go on and on. What a bad idea in my book.
                        Last edited by CorpSec; 05-14-2007, 11:45 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          As far as the mutual aid issue. This is generally in areas where we patrol the entire business district that is associtated with the place we are being called to help. We are hired by the district to provide patrol and response to all the businesses in the district.

                          As far as the enforcement off property we are limited in what we do to violent crimes in rogress.

                          We also get many calls from the local police to handle calls at not only our properties but also properties that are not ours because they dont have the people available to handle the call. (this works out to be good PR with the property and police). A report is then written and hand deliviered to the management by our owner if this happens. (Great way to get new contracts)
                          Robert
                          Here endith the lesson

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Arff312
                            We also get many calls from the local police to handle calls at not only our properties but also properties that are not ours because they dont have the people available to handle the call. (this works out to be good PR with the property and police). A report is then written and hand deliviered to the management by our owner if this happens. (Great way to get new contracts)
                            Astonishing.
                            "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

                            "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

                            "There is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

                            "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I don't understand how that works, at all. You're not agents of the owner, nor are you law enforcement officers under California Penal Code. (If you were, you wouldn't need BSIS licensing.)

                              If you're not representing the owner, then under what legal authority are you giving lawful orders in his name? I can see private arrest, since any person may do it anywhere, but again, who gave you permission to carry guns and be on their property in the first place? The police can't do that. They can give themselves permission as agents of the state, but not a third party.

                              If the police CAN do that, then you have just become actors of the state and are able to be sued for violating people's civil rights, without any of the qualified immunity the police get.
                              Some Kind of Commando Leader

                              "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Professional respect

                                Originally posted by davis002
                                I enjoy what I do... actually, some days I don't, but that's with any job. You are right, armed security is in the rougher parts of town. In fact, right now I am sitting in my car in south minneapolis (which had another murder a few hours ago). You wont find many corporate clients that want or require armed security (we have some, but not many).

                                Even though I work for an armed company that is anything but O&R, I still understand and accept the fact that O&R security has it's place in the industry. For example, a nursing home in the suburbs may require security, but they are focused more on access control and preventative duties. Some office complexes may have security with similar duties, but with additional duties like medical response and/or data security.

                                I have nothing but respect for anyone in the security industry, whether you are O&R or not. As long as you take your job seriously, and do what is expected of you, then you are a professional in my book.
                                I agree, security is so diverse that one can find the type of company that fits the person. In my eyes, I RESPECT any person that conducts themselfs in a professional manner reguardless of the type of security the do. We all have a place according to our skills, training and abilities. There is a choice for every person who works security. O&R or a more agressive company up to and including being armed. We all make the choice what type of security we want to do. This reminds me of the SO in the Apt complex shooting, it appears he took his job seriously and we all must accept the what ifs should we be armed and work for a more aggressive company. Of which I do and am armed.
                                "You don't hurt 'em if you don't hit 'em."
                                (Lieutenant General Lewis B. Puller, USMC, Marine, 1962.)

                                Comment

                                Leaderboard

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X