SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 2
CONTENTS
1 SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS ................................................................ 5
2 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 11
2.1 Background ........................................................................................ 11
2.2 Methodology ....................................................................................... 11
2.3 Analysis of results ............................................................................... 11
2.4 Structure of this report ........................................................................ 12
3 ACS COMPANIES ................................................................................. 13
3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 13
3.2 Company profile .................................................................................. 13
3.2.1 Sector(s) covered ........................................................................ 13
3.2.2 Size of business .......................................................................... 14
3.2.3 Number of clients ........................................................................ 14
3.2.4 Client sites ................................................................................. 15
3.3 Questions about the ACS ...................................................................... 15
3.3.1 Proportion of clients that require the ACS ....................................... 16
3.3.2 Proportion of private sector clients ................................................ 17
3.3.3 Effect of approved status on company turnover ............................... 17
3.3.4 Proportion of turnover change ....................................................... 18
3.3.5 Change attributable to ACS status? ............................................... 19
3.3.6 Work gained from non-SIA approved contractors ............................ 20
3.3.7 Work lost to non-SIA approved contractors ..................................... 20
3.3.8 What are the main benefits of the ACS for your company? ............... 22
3.3.9 What changes has the ACS delivered to your company? ................... 23
3.3.10 How has the ACS changed the way your company operates ........... 24
3.3.11 Are your standards higher as a result of ACS status? .................... 25
3.3.12 Has the ACS raised overall standards in private security industry? .. 26
3.3.13 What benefits has the ACS brought to the security industry?..........27
3.3.14 What have the public gained from the ACS? ................................. 28
3.3.15 What is the general perception of the ACS within buyers of security
services? ............................................................................................ 29
3.3.16 Should the Fast Track route to approval now be phased out? ......... 30
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 3
3.3.17 Should any refinements be made to the ACS workbook to make it
more user friendly? .............................................................................. 31
3.3.18 Should approved contractors be required to conform to the relevant
British Standards? ............................................................................... 32
3.3.19 Is the 85% licensing requirement still the most appropriate level? If
not is it too high or too low? ................................................................. 33
3.3.20 Is it an appropriate time to raise the standards for some of the
workbook criteria? ............................................................................... 34
3.3.21 What characteristics does a “fit and proper” organisation have? ..... 35
3.3.22 What are the most important changes you would like to see made to
the ACS? ............................................................................................ 36
3.3.23 Are there any observations or feedback you would like to submit? .. 37
4 NON-ACS COMPANIES .......................................................................... 38
4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 38
4.2 Company profile .................................................................................. 38
4.2.1 Sector(s) covered ........................................................................ 38
4.2.2 Size of business .......................................................................... 39
4.2.3 Number of clients ........................................................................ 39
4.2.4 Client sites ................................................................................. 40
4.3 Questions about the ACS ...................................................................... 40
4.3.1 Proportion of clients that require the ACS ....................................... 40
4.3.2 Proportion of private sector clients ................................................ 41
4.3.3 Turnover over the past year ......................................................... 42
4.3.4 Percentage change in turnover ...................................................... 42
4.3.5 Work gained from SIA approved contractor .................................... 43
4.3.6 Work lost to SIA approved contractor ............................................ 43
4.3.7 What does the ACS mean to you? .................................................. 45
4.3.8 Are you considering applying for the ACS status? ............................ 46
4.3.9 Why have you not pursued gaining the ACS status? ......................... 47
4.3.10 What do you consider to be the main benefits of the ACS .............. 48
4.3.11 What benefits do you think the ACS has brought to the security
industry? ............................................................................................ 49
4.3.12 Has the ACS helped to raise standards in the security industry
overall? ............................................................................................. 50
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 4
4.3.13 In your view what have the public gained from the ACS ................ 51
4.3.14 What is the general perception of the ACS within buyers of security
services? ............................................................................................ 52
4.3.15 What are the most important changes you would like to see made to
the ACS? ............................................................................................ 53
4.3.16 Are there any other observations or feedback you would like to
submit? ............................................................................................. 54
5 BUYERS OF SECURITY .......................................................................... 55
5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 55
5.2 Company profile .................................................................................. 55
5.2.1 Sector(s) covered ........................................................................ 55
5.2.2 Size of business .......................................................................... 55
5.2.3 Number of security providers ........................................................ 56
5.3 Questions about the ACS ...................................................................... 56
5.3.1 Proportion of ACS approved security providers ................................ 56
5.3.2 Frequency of security providers contract review .............................. 57
5.3.3 Use of non-approved contractors ................................................... 58
5.3.4 Why does your policy allow the use of non-approved contractors....... 59
5.3.5 What does the ACS mean to you? .................................................. 60
5.3.6 What are the advantages and disadvantages of using ACS companies
compared to non-ACS? ......................................................................... 61
5.3.7 Standards in the private security industry ...................................... 62
5.3.8 In what areas are the higher standards? ........................................ 63
5.3.9 In what additional areas would you like to see higher standards ........ 64
5.3.10 What benefits do you think the ACS has brought to the security
industry overall? .................................................................................. 65
5.3.11 In your view what have service users gained from the ACS?) ......... 66
5.3.12 If you do not use ACS companies what would make you change your
mind? ...............................................................................................67
5.3.13 What are the most important changes you would like to see made to
the ACS? ............................................................................................ 68
5.3.14 Are there any other observations or feedback you would like to
submit? ............................................................................................. 69
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 5
1 SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS
ACS COMPANIES
COMPANY PROFILE: Sectors most commonly covered by ACS companies
were „Security guarding‟ (92%) and „Key holding‟ (47%), while „Vehicle
immobilisation‟ (6%) and „Cash and valuables in transit‟ (2%) were the least
commonly selected. The majority of ACS respondents (60%) classified their
business as medium sized, while nearly a quarter (24%) classified their
company size as large, 12% as small, and only 4% as micro sized.
ACS respondents were most likely to provide security for 11-25 clients (21%),
51-100 (19%), or Over 300 (15%). 5% of respondents said they provide
security for 3-5 clients, and only 3% said they did so for 1-2. Respondents
were most likely to cover between 101-300 (20%), 26-50 and Over 300 (both
18%) client sites, and least likely to cover between 1-2 (3%), 3-5 (3%), and
6-10 client sites (7%).
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ACS: Almost half of approved contractors (47%)
said 0-20% of their clients require the ACS, while 20% of respondents said
that 80-100% required the status. The majority of ACS respondents (56%)
said 81-100% of their clients were private sector. 21% of respondents said
that 61-80% of their clients were from the private sector, while 11% said 41-
60% were, 5% said that 21-40% were, and 7% said that 0-20% were.
51% of ACS respondents said that their company turnover had increased
since they became an SIA approved contractor, 13% said it had decreased,
and 36% said it had stayed the same. The most commonly cited increases in
turnover since ACS companies became approved were 6-10% (17%) and 11-
25% (15%), while the most commonly cited decreases were –25 to –11% and
–10 to –6% (both 4%). When asked what proportion of respondents‟ change
in turnover could be attributed to their ACS status, the majority of approved
respondents (59%) said none. 28% suggested that their status was
responsible for around 25% of the change, 6% said it was responsible for
around 50%, and only 4% of respondents said it was 100% responsible for
their change in turnover.
Over one third (36%) of ACS respondents said that they had occasionally won
work from non-approved contractors, while 31% said they had never done so.
Only 5% of approved contractors said that they consistently won work from
non-approved contractors. 41% said they never lost work to non-approved
contractors, while 31% of approved companies said they did so occasionally
and 2% said they did so consistently.
Common themes from the open ended answers included the fact that while a
significant proportion of respondents believed that the ACS shows a firm is
professional and maintains high quality standards, a large proportion of
respondents also felt that the ACS has brought limited or no benefit to their
company. Firms felt that the accreditation has increased their costs, is time
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 6
consuming, and has created more administrative work. A large proportion of
ACS companies said that the ACS hasn‟t changed the way they operate as
they were already maintaining high quality levels before they were approved,
while a smaller proportion said that they had improved or introduced new
procedures as a result of their status.
Widespread opinion was that public is generally unaware of the ACS, and that
while some buyers are aware of the accreditation many simply choose to
ignore it in favour of lower costs. Opinion on whether the Fast Track route
should be phased out appeared to be fairly evenly split, as it was on whether
the 85% licensing requirement should be changed. A number of respondents
suggested that British Standards and the ACS should be harmonised or
combined, in order to reduce the cost, administration level and number of
audits required. Some ACS companies felt that the ACS should be made
compulsory for all contractors, while a significant proportion suggested that
the ACS needs to be more widely advertised and communicated, in order to
increase awareness.
NON-ACS COMPANIES
COMPANY PROFILE: The sectors covered most commonly by non-ACS
companies were „Security Guarding‟ (77%), „Door Supervision‟ (41%), and
„Key Holding‟ (32%), while „Vehicle Immobilisation‟ (5%), and „Cash and
Valuables in Transit‟ (0%) were the least commonly covered. 36% of non-ACS
respondents classified themselves as micro sized businesses, while 26% said
they were small, 37% medium and only 1% large.
Non-ACS companies said they were most likely to provide security for 11-25
(23%) and 6-10 (21%) clients. 16% said that they provided security for 1-2
or 3-5 clients, while only 1% served over 300 clients. 27% of respondents
said they covered 6-10 client sites, and 24% covered 11-25. 51-100 and 101-
300 client sites were both covered by 5% of non-ACS companies, while 2%
said they covered over 300.
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ACS: 71% of non-ACS respondents said 0-20% of
their clients require the ACS, whilst 8% said 21-40, 9% said 41-60%, 4% said
61-80%, and 9% said 81-100% did so. 41% of non-ACS respondents said
that 81-100% of their clients were private sector, while 19% said that 0-20%
of them were.
58% of non-ACS respondents said that their turnover had increased over the
past year, while 14% said it had decreased, and 28% said it had stayed the
same. 23% of non-ACS companies said that their turnover had increased by
11-25%, and 10% said it had done so by 26-50%. Companies that
experienced a decrease in turnover were most likely to have done so by –50
to –26% (7%).
59% of non-ACS companies said they never gained work from an SIA
approved contractor. 11% said they had seldom done so, while 22% said
occasionally, 8% said frequently, and no non-ACS respondents claimed to
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 7
have done so consistently. The majority (62%) of non-ACS respondents said
that they had never lost work to an SIA approved contractor, while 14% said
they had seldom done so, 16% said occasionally and 8% said frequently. No
non-ACS respondent claimed to have consistently lost work to an SIA
approved contractor.
Common themes from the open ended answers included the view that for
some non-approved companies, the ACS represents a high standard of quality
and credibility, to which they aspire. However, a large proportion of non-ACS
respondents felt that the ACS is an expensive, unnecessary exercise, and a
waste of their time. A very large proportion of respondents said that they are
considering, or already in the process of applying for ACS status, yet a
significant proportion also said that they were not.
While many non-approved contractors felt that ACS accreditation would give
them recognition within the industry, respondents were likely to say that they
had not persued the accreditation because of financial reasons, suggesting the
cost of becoming accredited was too high, and offered minimal advantages in
return. One commonly held view was that the ACS has brought credibility to
the security industry, while a significant proportion of respondents felt that
the ACS is yet to bring any benefits to the industry, and has simply increased
the cost of operating within it.
With similar responses to the accredited companies, many non-approved firms
felt that the public has not gained anything from the ACS, and that few are
aware of its existence. They agreed that buyers are either unaware of the
ACS, or choose to ignore the accreditation in favour of lower costs. A large
proportion of respondents suggested that the SIA should improve its
communication, reduce the costs associated with the scheme, and simplify the
application process.
BUYERS OF SECURITY
COMPANY PROFILE: 71% of buyers covered the private sector, while 48%
said they covered the public sector. Buyers were most likely to be medium
sized businesses (37%), followed by micro (29%), large (19%) and finally
small (15%). The majority of buyers (53%) said that they only used one
security provider, while 16% said they used two, 7% said three, 4% said four,
and 20% used five or more.
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ACS: When asked what proportion of their security
providers are ACS approved, one third of buyers (33%) said they used no
approved providers, while a quarter (25%) said that 100% of their security
providers were ACS approved. When asked how frequently buyers of security
review contracts with security providers, 36% said they did so every 0-6
months. Almost one third of buyers (32%) said they reviewed contracts every
7-12 months, while 15% did so every 2 years, 12% every 3 years, and only
5% every 4 years.
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 8
49% of buyers said they had policies that allow the use of non-approved
contractors, while 51% did not. 52% of buyers agreed that the ACS has
helped to raise standards in the private security, while 48% disagreed.
Common themes from the open ended answers included the view that
approved contractors were often no better than unapproved, yet were more
expensive. Some buyers suggested that they value relationships built up over
time with non-ACS companies, higher than the accreditation itself. For a
number of buyers, the ACS represents certain professional standards within
the industry, and has given them more confidence in the industry as a whole.
However, a significant proportion of buyers regard the accreditation as an
expensive waste of time and money. Suggested advantages of the scheme
included the idea that ACS companies were better managed, meet
professional standards, and are more reliable. However, disadvantages were
also highlighted, including the opinion that ACS companies are more
expensive, require more paperwork, and don't necessarily provide a better
service.
Some buyers suggested that the ACS had increased standards in all areas
across the industry, while others pinpointed more specific areas including
customer care and more professional staff. Although respondents often felt
that the ACS has made the industry more professional and raised minimum
standards, a significant proportion claimed that the ACS has brought no
benefits to the industry as a whole, and is an expensive waste of time. While a
large proportion of buyers suggested that service users have gained nothing
from the ACS, fewer respondents suggested that users have gained from
increased professionalism and well trained staff. In terms of potential
improvements to the scheme, some buyers suggested that the scheme should
be mandatory, that enforcement and regulation should be stricter, and that
communication needs to be improved.
COMPARATIVE QUESTIONS
COMPANY PROFILE: The sector covered most commonly by both ACS and
non-ACS companies was „Security guarding‟ (92% and 77% respectively),
while „Close protection‟ (7% vs 10%), „Vehicle immobilisation‟ (6% vs 5%)
and „Cash and valuables in transit‟ (2% vs 0%) were least likely to be
covered. Respondents from all subgroups were most likely to classify their
business as medium sized. Non-ACS companies were more likely than others
to be either micro sized or small (62%), while ACS respondents were the most
likely to be either medium or large (83%).
Respondents from non-ACS companies were more likely to serve between 1
and 10 clients (53%) than those from ACS companies (21%), while approved
contractors (26%) were more likely than non-approved (9%) to provide
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 9
security for over 100 clients. Non-ACS companies were significantly more
likely to cover between 1 and 10 client sites (57% vs 14%), while ACS
companies were more likely to cover over 100 client sites (38% vs 7%).
Predictably, the majority of non-ACS companies said that 0-20% of their
clients (71%) do not require the approved status, while more surprisingly
47% of approved contractors also said that this was the case. Respondents
from ACS companies (32%) were more likely than those from non-ACS (12%)
to say that over 60% of their clients require the ACS. Around half (49%) of all
businesses said that 81-100% of their clients are from the private sector.
Non-ACS companies (19%) were more likely than ACS (7%) to say that 0-
20% of their clients are from the private sector, while ACS companies were
significantly more likely to say that over 60% of their clients were (78%) than
non-ACS companies (54%).
Non-ACS companies (58%) were slightly more likely than ACS (51%) to say
they saw an increase in turnover. Responses of ACS and non-ACS companies
appeared similar when asked what proportion their turnover had changed by,
with „no change‟ (31% vs 27%) and an increase of 11 to 25% (15% vs 23%)
being the most commonly selected. Non-ACS companies were more likely to
report a decrease of over 25% (10% compared to 4%), or an increase of over
25% (18% compared to 12%) than ACS companies. While 59% of non-
approved respondents said that they had never gained work from approved
firms, 31% of approved firms said the same about their counterparts. 62% of
non-ACS companies said that they had never lost work to approved firms,
while only 41% of ACS companies said the same. 44% of ACS companies said
that they occasionally, frequently or consistently lost work to non-approved
contractors, while only 24% of non-ACS companies said the same.
Generally the responses of buyers, ACS and non-ACS respondents were very
similar in terms of open ended questions. Many respondents said the ACS
gives a firm recognition within the industry and shows that they meet certain
quality standards, while others suggested it was an expensive waste of time.
While 52% of buyers suggested that the ACS has helped to raise industry
standards, 48% disagreed. While both approved and non-approved
respondents said that the ACS has had very little or no impact on industry
standards, some suggested that it had brought a universal quality standard to
the industry.
Respondents from ACS and non-ACS firms suggested that the public is
generally unaware of the ACS. They also suggested that most buyers were not
aware the accreditation, and that those who were choose to ignore it in favour
of lower costs. However, far more buyers appeared to be aware of the ACS
than approved and non-approved companies thought, although many of them
did admit to ignoring the accreditation in favour of lower costs. A variety of
changes were suggested for the ACS, including the idea that the scheme
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 10
should be made mandatory and that the ACS needs to be more widely
promoted, in order to increase public awareness and interest in the scheme.
Respondents from all subgroups agreed that the SIA‟s communication needs
to be vastly improved, as do slow administrative processes. Respondents from
the non-ACS and buyers‟ surveys both complained about immigrants working
in the industry illegally.
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 11
2 INTRODUCTION
The Security Industry Authority (SIA) commissioned Snap SurveyShop to carry
out research into the benefits of the Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS), and
analyse the results. This report contains the research findings.
2.1 Background
The research was undertaken to establish whether the Approved Contractor
Scheme (ACS) is delivering on its purpose i.e. to raise standards in the private
security industry and therefore enhance public protection.
This research aimed to establish the drivers, value for money, interests and
benefits in the ACS. It also aimed to identify who uses ACS companies, why, and
what the impact of ACS is on buyers, end users and keys partners, in order to
determine future promotion and increased buyer recognition.
The research will provide input into an independent review of the scheme being
conducted on the SIA‟s behalf by the Office of Government and Commerce (OGC)
that will report in February 2008.
2.2 Methodology
This research comprised of three surveys, completed by three different groups of
respondents (approved companies, non-approved companies and buyers of
security). Firstly, companies registered on the Approved Contractor Scheme were
targeted by e-shot, as were the second group; Non-ACS companies. Thirdly, the
Communication of the online questionnaire was sent via a news release and
website link through approximately 4 to 5 media partners (including Security
Management Today (SMT), Infologue and the British Institute of Facilities
Management) to buyers of security.
A total of 301 responses were received, giving the ACS survey a response rate of
29% and the Non-ACS a rate of 19%, while the response rate for the buyers
survey is unknown.
Completed responses were collated and sent to Snap Surveys who carried out the
analysis. The principal contacts for the survey were Imogen Harwood at SIA and
Alex Green at Snap Surveys.
2.3 Analysis of results
Figures in this report are generally calculated as a proportion of respondents who
answered each question – that is, excluding "No Reply".
Some subgroup base sizes are small and so results need to be interpreted with
caution.
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 12
2.4 Structure of this report
The main body of the report is divided into the following sections, which look at
the survey results in detail:
- ACS Companies
- Company profile
- Questions about the ACS
- Non-ACS Companies
- Company profile
- Questions about the ACS
- Buyers of Security
- Company profile
- Questions about the ACS
- Comparative questions
- Company profile
- Questions about the ACS
The appendix contains a copy of the questionnaires, listings of respondents‟
comments, and full sets of data tabulations.
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 13
3 ACS COMPANIES
3.1 Introduction
This section of the report looks at the ACS questionnaire, and the responses of
companies registered on the Approved Contractor Scheme. It looks at the profiles
of ACS companies that took part in the survey, and their responses to various
questions about the scheme.
3.2 Company profile
This section of the report profiles ACS companies by sectors covered, company
size, and number of clients and client sites covered.
3.2.1 Sector(s) covered
ACS companies were asked which sectors their business covered. The most
commonly covered sectors were „Security guarding‟ (92%) and „Key holding‟
(47%), with „Vehicle immobilisation‟ (6%) and „Cash and valuables in transit‟
(2%) being the least commonly selected.
Sector(s) covered
Base: All respondents (121)
Security Guarding
Key holding
Door Supervision
Public Space Surveillance (CCTV)
Close Protection
Vehicle Immobilisation
Cash and Valuables in Transit
Other 6%
2%
6%
7%
92%
47%
26%
23%
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 14
3.2.2 Size of business
The majority of ACS respondents (60%) classified their business as medium sized
(26-250 employees). Nearly a quarter (24%) classified their company size as
large (over 250 employees), 12% as small (11-26 employees), and only 4% as
micro sized (up to 10 employees).
Companies that covered „Public space surveillance‟ (71%), „Cash and valuables in
transit‟ (67%) and „Vehicle immobilisation‟ (57%) sectors were most likely to
classify themselves as large, whereas those that covered „Close protection‟ (13%)
were the most likely to classify themselves as a micro sized company.
3.2.3 Number of clients
When asked how many clients they provide security for, ACS respondents were
most likely to say 11-25 (21%), 51-100 (19%), and Over 300 (15%). 5% of
respondents said they provide security or 3-5 clients, and only 3% said they do so
for 1-2.
Looking at subgroups, companies that cover „Cash and valuables in transit‟ (100%
- although it should be noted that this was only three respondents), „Public space
surveillance‟ (29%), and „Key holding‟ (26%) were the most likely to provide
security for over 300 clients. Companies covering the „Vehicle immobilisation‟
sector were more likely than any others to provide security for 1-2 clients (14%),
3-5 clients (14%), and 6-10 clients (29%).
Base: All respondents (121)
Your company size
Micro (up to 10 employees)
Small (11-26 employees)
Medium (26-250 employees)
Large (over 250 employees) 24%
60%
12%
4%
How many clients do you provide security for?
Base: All respondents (121)
1-2
3-5
6-10
11-25
26-50
51-100
101-300
Over 300
12%
19%
12%
15%
3%
5%
13%
21%
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 15
Predictably, micro firms (40% - again note should be taken that this is a small
base size) were more likely than small (20%), medium (7%) or large (0%)
companies to serve between 1 and 5 clients. Similarly, small companies were
most likely to serve 6-10 clients (40%), medium companies to serve from 26 to
100 clients (40%), and large firms to serve from 101 to over 300 clients (55%).
Less predictably however, micro sized companies were more likely to provide
security at the 11-25 client level (40%), than small (7%), medium (26%) and
large (10%).
3.2.4 Client sites
When asked how many client sites they cover, ACS respondents most commonly
selected 101-300 (20%), 26-50 and Over 300 (both 18%). ACS respondents were
least likely to say that they cover 1-2 (3%), 3-5 (3%), and 6-10 client sites (7%).
In terms of subgroups, there were few clear relationships between the number of
clients covered and the sectors covered by a company. For example, while
companies who cover the „Close protection‟ sector are the most likely to cover 1-2
client sites (14%), they are also the most likely to cover 26-50 (29%) and 101-
300 client sites (43%). It can be noted however that all companies covering the
„Cash and valuables in transit‟ sector said they covered over 300 client sites.
Again, relationships between the size of ACS businesses and the number of client
sites they cover were as expected. Micro companies were most likely to cover 1-2
client sites (40%), small to cover 3-5 and 6-10 (20% and 33% respectively),
medium to cover 26-50 (25%) and 51-100 (22%), and large companies to cover
101-300 and Over 300 (28% and 48% respectively). Again however, micro sized
companies were more likely to cover 11-25 client sites (40%) than small (7%),
medium (19%) or large companies (3%).
3.3 Questions about the ACS
This section looks at the responses of ACS companies when asked what
proportion of their clients require the ACS, if company turnover has been affected
by their approved status, and how regularly work is gained from or lost to non-
Number of client sites covered
Base: All respondents (117)
1-2
3-5
6-10
11-25
26-50
51-100
101-300
Over 300
18%
16%
20%
18%
3%
3%
7%
15%
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 16
approved contractors. These questions were followed by a series of open-ended
questions, which examine in more detail ACS companies‟ views on the scheme.
3.3.1 Proportion of clients that require the ACS
When asked what proportion of their clients require the ACS, almost half of
approved contractors (47%) said 0-20%. At the other end of the scale, 20% of
respondents said that 80-100% of their clients required the approved status.
In the majority of sectors, at least 50% of approved contractors stated that 0-
20% of their clients did not require the ACS. For example, companies covering
the „Cash and valuables in transit‟ (100%), „Vehicle immobilisation‟ (57%), „Other‟
(57%), „Key holding‟ (51%), and „Close protection‟ sectors (50%) felt this way,
suggesting that the ACS may not be valued by the industry as highly as the SIA
would like. However, 50% of companies in the „Close protection‟ sector also
stated that 81-100% of their clients required the ACS.
Micro sized companies were more likely to deal with clients who don't require the
approved status with 80% saying that 0-20% of their clients require the ACS,
compared to small (60%), medium (49%) and large (31%) companies.
Proportion of clients that require the ACS
Base: All respondents (121)
0-20%
21-40%
41-60%
61-80%
81-100%
12%
12%
9%
47%
20%
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 17
3.3.2 Proportion of private sector clients
When asked what proportion of their clients are private sector, the majority of
ACS respondents (56%) said 81-100%. 21% of respondents said that 61-80% of
their clients were from the private sector, while 11% said 41-60% were, 5% said
that 21-40% were, and 7% said that 0-20% were.
Companies covering the „Vehicle immobilisation‟ (86%), „Cash and valuables in
transit‟ (67%) and „Close protection‟ (63%) sectors were the most likely to have
81-100% of their clients in the private sector. However, companies covering the
„Vehicle immobilisation‟ sector (14%) were also the most likely to have 0-20% of
their clients in the private sector, slightly contradicting the information above.
Medium (60%) and large (59%) companies were more likely than small and micro
sized companies (both 40%) to have over 80% of their clients in the private
sector. No micro sized companies said that 0-20% of their clients were in the
private sector, compared to small, medium and large companies (all 7%).
3.3.3 Effect of approved status on company turnover
51% of ACS respondents said that their company turnover had increased since
they became an SIA approved contractor. 13% said that their turnover had
decreased, while 36% said it had stayed the same.
Micro sized companies (60%) were more likely than small (0%), medium (17%)
and large companies (3%) to say their turnover had decreased since they became
Proportion of clients that are private sector
Base: All respondents (121)
0-20%
21-40%
41-60%
61-80%
81-100% 56%
7%
5%
11%
21%
Effect on company turnover
Base: All respondents (121)
Increased
Decreased
Stayed the same
51%
13%
36%
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 18
an approved contractor, whereas small companies (80%) were the most likely to
say their turnover had stayed the same. Medium (53%) and large companies
(69%) were significantly more likely than small and medium companies (both
20%) to report an increase in turnover since they achieved their approved
contractor status.
Companies covering the „Cash and valuables in transit‟ (100%), „Close protection‟
(63%) and „Door supervision‟ (63%) sectors were the most likely to have
reported an increase in turnover since they became approved contractors. Those
in the „Close protection‟ sector (25%) were the most likely to report a decrease,
whereas those in the „Vehicle immobilisation‟ (57%) and „Other‟ (43%) sectors
were the most likely to see no change in turnover.
3.3.4 Proportion of turnover change
When asked by what proportion their company turnover changed since they
became an approved contractor, ACS companies were most likely to say it stayed
the same (31%). The most commonly cited increases were 6-10% (17%) and 11-
25% (15%), while the most commonly cited decreases were –25 to –11% and –
10 to –6% (both 4%).
Only companies covering the „Key holding‟ (5%), „Security guarding‟ (5%), „Public
space surveillance‟ (4%) and „Door supervision‟ (3%) sectors saw a decrease in
turnover of over 25%. Companies in „Other‟ sectors (29%) were the most likely to
see an increase of over 50%, while those in „Cash and valuables in transit‟ (33%)
and „Door supervision (19%) were most likely to see increases in turnover of
between 11 and 25%.
Respondents from micro companies (20%) were the only ones to report decreases
in turnover of over 50% since they became approved contractors. Similarly, no
micro or small company reported an increase of over 25%, compared to 10% of
medium and 14% of large companies.
% change in turnover since became approved
Base: All respondents (121)
More than -50%
-50 to -26%
-25 to -11%
-10 to -6%
-5 to -1%
No change
1 to 5%
6 to 10%
11 to 25%
26 to 50%
More than 50%
4%
4%
3%
1%
2%
31%
12%
17%
15%
8%
3%
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 19
3.3.5 Change attributable to ACS status?
When asked what proportion of respondents‟ change in turnover could be
attributed to their ACS status, the majority of approved respondents (59%) said
none. 28% of respondents suggested that their approved status was responsible
for around 25% of their change in their turnover, while 6% said it was responsible
for around 50%. Only 4% of respondents said that their ACS status was 100%
responsible for their change in turnover.
Companies in the „Cash and valuables in transit‟ (100%), „Public space
surveillance‟ (64%) and „Key holding‟ (58%) sectors were the least likely to
attribute any change in their turnover to their approved status. Those companies
in „Close protection‟ (63%) and „Other‟ (43%) were most likely to attribute around
25% of their turnover change to their status, while those in „Vehicle
immobilisation‟ (14%) were the most likely to suggest their status was
responsible for around 50% of their turnover change. Companies in „Close
protection‟ (13%) were the most likely to suggest that their ACS status was
wholly responsible for their change in turnover.
Small (80%) and large companies (66%) were less likely than micro (20%) and
medium sized (54%) companies to attribute none of their change in turnover to
their approved status, while micro companies (20%) were the most likely to say
ACS status was 100% responsible.
% of change attributable to ACS status
Base: All respondents (121)
None
Around 25%
Around 50%
Around 75%
All
3%
6%
28%
59%
4%
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 20
3.3.6 Work gained from non-SIA approved contractors
When asked how often they had won work from non-approved contractors, over
one third (36%) of ACS respondents said they had done so occasionally, while the
second most commonly selected answer was never (31%). Only 5% of approved
contractors said that they consistently won work from non-approved contractors.
Respondents from companies in the „Vehicle immobilisation‟ (43%), „Cash and
valuable in transit‟ (33%) and „Security guarding‟ (32%) sectors were the most
likely to say that they had never gained work from a non-SIA approved
contractor. Firms in the „Close protection‟ sector (13%) were the most likely to
say that they consistently gained work from non-SIA approved firms.
There were few differences between the responses of small and medium
businesses in this case, however micro (20%) and large (24%) companies were
less likely to say that they never gained work from non-approved contractors than
small (40%) and medium (32%), and more likely to say they did so consistently
(40% and 7% respectively).
3.3.7 Work lost to non-SIA approved contractors
When asked how often they lose work to non-approved contractors, ACS
companies were most likely to say never (41%). 31% of approved companies said
that they occasionally lost work to non-approved contractors, while only 2% said
they did so consistently.
How often gain work from non-SIA approved contractor
Base: All respondents (121)
Never
Seldom
Occasionally
Frequently
Consistently
3%
36%
25%
31%
5%
How often lose work to non-SIA approved contractor
Base: All respondents (121)
Never
Seldom
Occasionally
Frequently
Consistently
11%
31%
15%
41%
2%
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 21
No respondents from micro sized companies claimed that they never lost work to
non-approved contractors, compared to 55% of large, 47% of small, and 38% of
medium sized companies. Respondents from medium sized companies (4%) were
the only subgroup to say that they consistently lost work to non-SIA approved
contractors.
Companies in the „Cash and valuables in transit‟ (67%) and „Public space
surveillance‟ (54%) sectors were the most likely to say they never lost work to
non-approved contractors, while those in „Key holding‟ (19%) and „Close
protection‟ (25%) were most likely to say they seldom did so. A large number of
respondents in all sectors said that they occasionally lost work, while companies
in „Vehicle immobilisation‟ (57%) were most likely to say that they did so
frequently. While no respondents from companies covering „Cash and valuable in
transit‟, „Vehicle immobilisation‟ or „Other‟ said they consistently lost work to non-
SIA approved contractors, those firms in the „Close protection‟ sector (13%) were
the most likely to do so.
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 22
3.3.8 What are the main benefits of the ACS for your company? (open
ended)
The most common themes among the responses of ACS companies included the
view that being an SIA approved contractor is good for corporate image as it
shows that a firm maintains specific quality standards. Respondents were also
likely to mention the fact that they are able to deploy security staff while their
licence applications are being processed as a benefit. However, a significant
proportion of respondents said that the ACS has brought limited or no benefit to
their company.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"Ability to deploy up to
15% of staff on LDN"
"Because it requires competitor
companies to improve their
standards. Over time it will impact
on Security Officer wages."
"Can honestly say I have seen no benefits at
all, we were already UKAS ISO certificated and
in the first couple of years potential clients do
not appear to be interested in the ACS."
"Holding ACS enables us to
confirm our status within the
industry as one of the blue
chip companies."
"No benefits found to date.
Most of our end-users are
SME's and wouldn't know
anything about the SIA or ACS
if we hadn't told them."
"A good marketing tool for those clients that give a damn. It also puts you in a
different league to non-ACS companies and gives you credibility within the
industry. However, we still meet new clients who have no idea about the SIA or
ACS, which is frustrating considering the effort and expence of attaining and
keeping that status."
"An objective and rigerous
assessment of our ability to
provide guarding services."
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 23
3.3.9 What changes has the ACS delivered to your company? (open ended)
A large proportion of ACS respondents said that becoming accredited has
increased their costs, is time consuming, and has created more administrative
work, while a significant amount said that is has delivered no changes. Fewer
respondents were reported that they have become more committed to quality and
communication.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"Better Quality Management as the workbook is a
good guide to operating properly. ACS Workshops
are useful for networking and seeing how others
tackle similar issues. More flexibility due to LDN's."
"ACS has enabled us to market
ourselves as a premier security
services provider for our region"
"Alot more paper work. More
thourough checks carried out and
more flexibility deploying staff."
"Increased bureaucracy,
administration and cost."
"It has helped us
to deliver a
more competent
and efficient end
product to our
clients."
"The ACS as made our and alot of the
other companies more professional in
the way we all deliver our servicers to
all our clients."
"The accreditation has increased our
overhead and administration costs with
no appreciable increase in revenue to
compensate. Clients are not willing to
pay increased rates as a result of our
company being ACS approved.
Furthermore, we have not been able to
increase payrates to the security
officers as we would have liked to or
that the security officers expected."
"It has enabled us to demonstrate to our clients and stakeholders
that we are an organisation which is committed to continual
improvement and development and reflects our determination to
improve the image and standing of our security industry"
"Need to comply to ACS requirements
which is time consuming. ACS is
aiming to drive us where we would
wish to go, but is forcing us to do
comply at their pace, rather than our
own. This is unsustainable financially
without prudent management."
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 24
3.3.10 How has the ACS changed the way your company operates? (open
ended)
A large proportion of approved contractors said that the ACS hasn‟t changed the
way they operate as they were already maintaining high standards of quality.
Again, respondents mentioned that the ACS has increased costs and
administrative burdens. In this case a smaller proportion of respondents reported
that the ACS has positively changed their procedures and customer service.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"Completely, we now readily
embrace best practice ,ensure that
our staff are equipted to carry out
their assigned roles and promote the
professional image of an icreasingly
recognised industry that'as playing
an important role in the working life
of the nation"
"It has allowed managers to be
more focused on service
delivery and the care and
deployment of security
officers"
"ACS has not changed the
way we operate at all, but it
has affected how we market
ourselves."
"It has led to the appointment of a corporate head
of security where as previously it was developed at
local level and different throughout the company.
Now it is all standardised."
"Ensured we maintain a
professional approach at all time s"
"More Admin, more training,
more paperwork"
"Very little apart from
the licensing aspect"
"We have promoted ourselves as an ACS company
through varied means. However as stated, it has not
made any difference to any clientele. It has changed
the way this company operates in as much as we have
cut back in other areas to save cost in order to
continue implementing ACS."
"Yes - We only employ staff
who hold an appropriate
license and the requirements
of ACS has allowed us to
focus on our administrative
practices to ensure on-gonig
compliance."
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 25
3.3.11 Are your standards higher as a result of being an ACS company? (open
ended)
Again, a large proportion of respondents said that their standards remained
fundamentally unchanged as they were already adhering to high quality
standards. A smaller proportion of ACS respondents said that they had improved
or introduced new procedures as a result of their approved status.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"definitely the standards are higher, the
ACS brought in more direct
responsibility within every organization
from top to bottom and it touches every
aspect of management you can think of
ranging from finance to health & safety
right through to the least person in
every organization has responsibility."
"Our standards are higher in that we are adhering to the legislation, and whilst this
can sometimes make operational decisons more difficult it is the only way as a
company we would want to operate post legislation. I do not believe our standards
are higher if you take of the legislation aspect as we always adhere to BS7499 and
ISO 9000. However, the extra checks and balances of ACS are a benefit."
"Not really, we already had fully
certificated, effectively run
management systems [to ISO 9001,
14001, OHSAS 1800 etc]"
"New policies and procedures
are in place in order to
comply with ACS, however
the standards of service
remain as they have always
been. Actual 'on the ground'
procedures and doing the job
is the same."
"High standards have always been a
priority and are largely unchanged"
"No we always have worked
to a very high standard"
"Yes people have more focus
and a managable template to
follow - due to enhanced
awareness of role."
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 26
3.3.12 Has the ACS raised overall standards in the private security industry?
(open ended)
Opinion on whether the ACS has raised overall standards appeared to be mixed.
While some respondents said that said that the ACS had raised standards by
enforcing certain quality standards, others suggested the ACS has had no
significant impact, or that it was too early to tell. A small proportion of
respondents suggested that in order for the ACS to affect industry-wide
standards, the accreditation would (or in some cases should) need to be made
compulsory.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"Definitely it has, at least the
client has more confidence on
who is guarding their premises,
and valuables knowing that
they have met a required
standard."
"No because it is not
advertised enough and there
are still too many rouge
company in this area getting
away with breaking the rules”
"Marginally, futher improvements
will take more time as the SIA
improves its own disciplines"
"I think the ACS has raised all standards through
out the industry. Again alot of it as gone on
customer focus."
"I beleive overall it has, but hope that it will
grow and force the rogue element that still
meet no standards out of the industry."
"Cosmetically. The Industry is keen as a
whole to be seen as more professional.
It has been supported to an extent by
the SIA. However, the marketting of the
whole concept is sadly lacking"
"Yes, an acknowledged standard
used throughout the Security
Industry that promotes good
regulation"
"Not at the moment because there
is stll a lot of people that do not
realise what it means. More
advertising by the SIA is required"
"Yes I do, as some companies
wanting ACS for LDNs will have
had to improve certain areas for
their assessments."
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 27
3.3.13 What benefits has the ACS brought to the security industry? (open
ended)
While a significant proportion of respondents said that they believed the ACS has
brought a universal quality standard, standardisation and increased awareness to
the security industry, respondents were more likely to say that they believed the
ACS had brought few or no benefits to the industry as a whole.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"An overall standard as far as guardin is
concerned. Keyholding and Alarm Response
Needs the support of the Approved
Contractors sheme and the SIA"
"ACS has provided the
groundwork, but we won't see
any major benefits unless we
have enforcement."
"Good sytem of regulation and guidance"
"Customers are at last starting
to recognise that ACS
companies meet a level of
standards & criteria"
"Not many in the short term. I think it
is probably going to take at least
another five, maybe ten years for the
benefits, or otherwise, of ACS to be
able to be fully evaluated and
understood"
"The introduction of the SIA/ACS is long overdue and
the benefits will be significant but only when the
controls introduced affect all those who work or are
involved in any aspect of the security industry. If this
does not happen then i think the overall effectiveness
and integrity of the scheme will be damaged"
"It has brought about trust,
confidence and most of all a
standard that is there to stay
from year to year."
"Standards and quality"
"Increased public awarness of
the fact that the industry is
trying to improve standards."
"Unfortunately we are still in
the early stages and we
believe that any advantages
that are to be gained will be
seen as the process
matures"
"It has set a common
standard."
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 28
3.3.14 What have the public gained from the ACS? (open ended)
Common answers included the idea that the public is generally unaware the ACS
and it‟s aims, or that public gains will take time to become apparent. A significant
proportion of ACS companies suggested that the public has gained confidence and
trust in a more professional security industry, and that the accreditation is slowly
becoming more widely recognised.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"The knowledge that our industry is
professional"
"Generally if they are
aware of what the ACS
stands for and is set out to
acheive they may be more
inclined to use/trust an
ACS company"
"A little more confidence in the
industry due to regulation though
credibility has been harmed by the
recent media exposure of right to
work issues within certain security
providers."
"Assurance that the security industry is
regulated and is in the main made up of
professional security companies."
"I would like to think that the security
industry is better regulated and more trusted
but we see other security companies still
supplying men in a hut on a minimum wage,
doing the absolute bare minimum to just
about satisfy their client rating. People like
this are a laughing stock to the youth and the
public at large."
"Nothing Apart from making a nice imagie for
security companies, people dont know who the
SIA is and what you do! People working in
security have to, but general public dont know.
There our potential customers"
"No obvious gains to the public.
Reputable companies were working
to a high standard anyway."
"Very littel for the same reasons as
previously stated: many companies
are ignoring the rules, and some
have been accepted onto the ACS
under the fast track mechanism,
without being properly checked"
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 29
3.3.15 In your view, what is the general perception of the ACS within buyers of
security services? (open ended)
While a number of approved contractors suggest that buyers are aware of the
ACS and the quality standards it carries, a larger proportion of respondents
suggest that buyers are either unaware of the accreditation, or simply choose to
ignore it in favour of lower costs. Respondents have suggested that buyers do not
fully understand the ACS and as such are unaware of its potential advantages.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"It is starting to be a criteria
for participation"
"A large number of smaller
organisations are still unaware of the
sia let alone the acs"
"It is just another accreditation level"
"Another quango-type org'n
layering on higher costs"
"Not concerned with ACS
more concerned with price
and service."
"Due to lack of advertising from the S.I.A 90% of new
enquiries dont even know about S.I.A licences never mind
what A.C.S is, It needs Advertising on a national basis like
Television in the evenings, Also the consequences of using
unlicensed persons needs to be advertised."
"Slowly filtering through that
ACS companys are the ones
to use."
"The veiw that we get is that
if we are ACS approved
contractors then we must be
doing something right."
"They do not fully understand what it means.
Buying patterns haven't changed and, if
anything, organisations are buying purely on
price. There does not appear to be any premium
attached to ACS membership."
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 30
3.3.16 Should the Fast Track route to approval now be phased out? (open
ended)
Opinion on whether the Fast Track route should be phased out appeared to be
fairly even split. While some respondents suggested that Fast Track had served its
purpose, others argued that it should never have existed in the first place. Some
suggest that Fast Track should remain in place as up-to-date qualifications are
worth recognition, while others argue that companies have had plenty of time to
meet the new quality standards.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"I do not believe it needs to
be phased out, as the same
principles apply now as did at
the inception. Perhaps I
would shorten the time for
the initial assessment, e.g.
within six months."
"I believe that in order for
companies to benifit, fast
track should be removed.
The standard route should
be used by all companies
wishing to achieve this
accrditation."
"Fast track should be phased out as most
companies have had the opportunity to be
in a position to apply now. Also the
requirements for ACS are higher."
"No, fast track should be allowed
because contrary to the SIA's beliefs,
a lot of companys already had
excellent quality systems and vetting
procedures in place before the SIA
was even dreamed of."
"As a Company who used the fast track
system to gain A.C.S. having first gained
I.S.O 90001 2000 it should remain. This
will enable companies to experience
systems introduced and improve before
the A.C'S.assessment."
"I think it should be phased out, a lot of companies these days dont
employ unlicensed guards anymore, the initial objective was to help
companies whose employee's are still going through lincensing process
then when their was a lot of back- log it should be phased out i recon."
"Not sure if this is relevant any longer."
"Yes it should be phased out,
as it has proven to be open to
abuse in the past. Also most
genuine quality accredited
companies are in the ACS
already."
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 31
3.3.17 Should any refinements be made to the ACS workbook to make it more
user friendly? (open ended)
While a number of respondents suggested that the workbook is user friendly in its
current format, a large proportion suggested that it should be simplified in terms
of language and content. Fewer respondents suggested that some content could
be reduced to make it more applicable to smaller companies, and that it could
contain more practical examples.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"Consider workbook to be
userfriendly in its current
format."
"I fiound the workbook hard to go through,
it was not simple and a lot of the questions
were much the same, the range of answers
were not clear. I found it long and tedious"
"It is manageable and
covers the relevant areas
but it should be reviewed for
repetition and vagueness"
"Add more examples for each
criteria. Possibly provide companies
with a book to assist in their internal
auditting. Produce a workbook for
each sector with the same criteria
but with different examples that are
more applicable to the company in
question. The workbook and the
workbook guide could be combined."
"Once again too many grey areas and a
lot of questions that are not relevant to
the security industry."
"Terminology could be made
clearer, perhaps gaining the
crystal mark would be a
good move"
"There is repetition
throughout the workbook. It
can be shorten and
simplified. On line
completion is not easy."
"Yes. So many sections overlap and the termnology could be
better. Many sections are interprited differently by companys,
auditors and the ACS. From the ACS forums it is clear that
different companies do interprite section differently."
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 32
3.3.18 Should approved contractors be required to conform to the relevant
British Standards (e.g. BS7858), and if so in what way? (open ended)
A large proportion of respondents from ACS companies said that they believed
approved contractors should meet relevant British standards as a minimum
prerequisite. However, a significant proportion of respondents suggested that
British Standards and the ACS should be harmonised, meaning that while
contractors would still be required to meet both standards, only one audit would
be required.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"In our opinion, since SIA/ACS are 'government' organisations the law
of the land where appropriate must always be included in any form of
approval. We are open to argument as to how best to achieve this.
We have also always believed that the present practice of inspecting
companies seperately for ACS and ISO 9000 should end and the two
inspections be harmonised. We believe that they are complimentary
schemes."
"All Security Companies should conform to
this standard it is important to the
Industry as a whole but still we have lots
of individuals who for some reason are not
and I cannot think why it’s not in the ACS"
"All Approved Contractors should
demonstrate full compliance with
all relevent standards which apply
to their scope."
"This should be one of the minimum requirements of ACS as
BS7858 has been a benchmark of measurement for a number of
years. All companies should be compliant with this irrespective
of thier status within the industry. Consideration should also be
given to other Britih Standard QMS accreditations such as
BS7499 or BS7984 as appropriate."
"It was hoped that the ACS would
supercede the BS standards.
Having both means additional costs
and paperwork. The ACS should be
a standard alone benchmark for
quality."
"Yes. ACS companies should be
operating to the highest standards
available if the SIA want ACS to
become the gold standard."
"No the SIA Licence should be
sufficient providing the checks
are completed correctly."
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 33
3.3.19 Is the 85% licensing requirement still the most appropriate level? If not
is it too high or too low? (open ended)
Opinion varied greatly in this area, with ACS respondents suggesting levels from
0% to 100% were appropriate. A large proportion of respondents agreed that the
current level remains appropriate, while a smaller proportion suggested that this
level is too high for small companies and should be lowered.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"85% is a realistic figure. Although I
would suspect, like us, that most
companies are sitting much higher than
that figure. We are at 98.5%."
"Based on the size of our
company at the moment 85%
is too high. Industry Average
company size I believe it is
acceptable."
"About right"
"Initially it was perceived we would suffer from a lack
of 'licensed' staff and the build up to 85% was
considered valuable. However there does not appear to
be a lack of licensed applicants so I see no reason to
change this level."
"I think it is low enough to achieve some flexibility
and high enough to retain some standard so I think it
should stay at the current level."
"For close protection this rule does not
work and de-values the accreditation.
To achieve ACS status in close
protection licensing must be 100%"
"It seems fine at the
moment and is a good
level of compliance. Would
not object to a small rise in
the figure up to 90%"
"Should be brought down
to 75% at least as some
time jobs come in and 5 or
6 LDN's are not enough.
This definnatly needs to be
looked at."
"Yes. We feel that this is appropriate in general and special
cases would be assessed on an individual basis by the SIA"
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 34
3.3.20 Is it an appropriate time to raise the standards for some of the
workbook criteria? (open ended)
A large proportion of respondents suggested that current standards were
appropriate and should not be changed. Some suggested that companies should
be given more time to work towards the standards so the processes becomes part
of their everyday routines, rather than being continually updated. The other
commonly cited view was that the ACS schemes should represent the idea of
continual improvement, and as such, workbook criteria should be regularly
updated.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"As the ACS is voluntary and not to discourage
those applying for it, I believe further proof of the
ACS benefits are needed before any adjustment
in this area."
No - too soon. We need to give
adequate time for all companies
possible to become an ACS
approved contractor before
raising standards. Suggest
increasing standards in April
2010 and giving a minimum six
months notice of the intended
changes."
"It is always a good think to raise
standards but I would be worried that
things may become unachievable for
smaller companies if the requirements
become too stringent"
"I feel we are just getting
used to the existing
standards and have gone
through so much change in
the last few years that a
period of stability would be
good."
"No. A little time longer is needed to
stabilise, and sort out what is happening
with Fast Track. Once all companies are on
a level playing field, standard levels can be
looked at"
"The scheme is about continual
improvement and therefore the
answer is yes."
"yes additional training needs to
be implemented and qulity of
training, to find this out, book
yourself on a course and see the
qulity of this its appaling."
"Yes. If the standards do not increase, then the ACS will go
the way of the NSI and the BSIA."
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 35
3.3.21 What characteristics does a “fit and proper” organisation have? (open
ended)
The responses of ACS companies varied greatly in this instance as respondents
interpreted „fit and proper‟ in a variety of ways. Common themes included
financial stability, fully trained staff, adhering to recognised quality standards,
good organisational structure and a culture of continuous improvement.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"A demonstrable commitment to providing
high quality service, a demonstrable
commitment to treating its staff and clients
well and financial stability."
"Integrity, responsibility, customer
satisfaction, profitability, good customer
retention, sound HR and Health and
Safety culture, ability to change in
accordance with customer requirements
and security needs."
"An aspiration to high
standards of excellence,
customer care and fully
trained and motivated staff"
"Financially prudent, adhere to standards
(don't play lip service), have a documented
internal audit process and comply with it."
"A 'fit and proper' organisation should be: - focussed on delivery of the
absolute best to any person(s) impacted upon - and not compliant purely
because they need to be! - concentrated on resolving of issues and ensuring
appropriate preventative measures are put in place. - targeted towards
continual self assessment and improvement as a minimum"
"Financially sound.
Complies to relevant
British Standards and in
rigourously inspected to
that standard."
"Honesty and
transparency in all its
dealings with staff,
clients and contractors"
"Quality Assurance Procedures for all processes Membership of
professional associations"
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 36
3.3.22 What are the most important changes you would like to see made to
the ACS? (open ended)
Once again, opinion varied greatly in this area, although some common themes
were apparent. For example, a significant proportion of respondents suggested
that the ACS should be made compulsory for all contractors, and also that the
ACS needs to be more widely advertised/communicated in order to increase
awareness. A smaller proportion suggested that the costs of accreditation, and
the amount of administration work associated with the ACS should be reduced,
particularly for smaller companies who are struggling with the current levels.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"A review of its purpose and
delivery of the benefits it can
actually achieve rather than
those it notionally aspires too."
"Compulsory membership to all companies, or
relaxed rules for all companies. Keep the
playing field level and administrations costs
even for all secuerity companies in relation to
the SIA/ACAS"
"A dedicated telephone line for ACS
Companies not just the main number.
Decated team leader to contact at the
Document Handling Centre.Improved
communication"
"For it to be communicated
and become essential for
government and public bodies
to use only ACS approved
contractors."
"Enforcement and tougher
punishment on those
companies blatently
abusing the ACS scheme"
"Information on attainment
levels published. Regulation
and policing improved. More
publicity and contact with
security purchasers on
advantages of the scheme."
"More consultation"
"More communication about it, more
advertisement re the companies who are
approved, a system of company
participation, i.e. could the SIA not form a
small committee from the approved
companies who could assist in a number of
areas."
"On line system to be improved, enabling 90% of operational
issues to be dealt with on line thus freeing up the telephone
lines for urgent issues"
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 37
3.3.23 Are there any observations or feedback you would like to submit?
(open ended)
As this is a very general question, there were few recurring themes among the
responses submitted. A large proportion of ACS respondents said that they had
nothing further to add. Again, respondents mentioned high costs, communication
problems and a need for increased publicity of the ACS.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"ACS accreditation has yet to be
the recognised requirement by
the end user. Too many other
bodies such as the BSIA,
Security Watchdog, NSI etc are
hanging on!"
"Many have been made
over the past months
about illegal staff and
companies all have fallen
on deaf ears, whats the
point, our time is money"
"Better channels of
communication and speedier
administration."
"The ACS meeting in Bristol I found very
useful, Andrew Shepperd and his team are
also very helpful whenever I call. By far
the best people I have dealt with
connected to the SIA, which has not
always been pleasant, but they are getting
there, despite the bad press recently and
still get my vote."
"I believe the benefits of ACS need to be
higlhlighted, and the only way this will truly
happen if non acs companies who are operating
illegaly are procesuted or named and shamed.
There is an expense to the bsuiness post
licencing with ACS membership and companies
will become disallusioned if value for money
cannot be demonstrated."
"On licensing... We fear that the Sia will yet again, not be in a position
to handle the volume of licence renewals. The project anagment and
implementation of the schemes doesn't always deliver."
"We are very happy with
the benefits ACS has
brought to our internal
processes and audits."
"The sia appear to be very presumtios of their position and demand certain
things that can be very hard to achieve (ie they must interview clients) and
would be hard to achieve if the roles were reversed."
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 38
4 NON-ACS COMPANIES
4.1 Introduction
This section of the report looks at the non-ACS questionnaire, and the responses
of companies who have registered interest in the ACS scheme in the past but
taken it no further. It looks at the profiles of non-ACS companies that took part in
the survey, and their responses to various questions about the scheme.
4.2 Company profile
This section of the report profiles non-ACS companies by sectors covered,
company size, and number of clients and client sites covered.
4.2.1 Sector(s) covered
The sectors covered most commonly by non-ACS companies were „Security
Guarding‟ (77%), „Door Supervision‟ (41%), and „Key Holding‟ (32%), while
„Vehicle Immobilisation‟ (5%), and „Cash and Valuables in Transit‟ (0%) were the
least commonly covered.
„Security Guarding‟ and „Door Supervision‟ were more likely to be covered by
small businesses (81% and 56% respectively), while „Key Holding‟ was more
likely to be covered by medium businesses (38%) than other sized firms.
Sector(s) covered
Base: All respondents (105)
Security Guarding
Door Supervision
Key holding
Public Space Surveillance (CCTV)
Close Protection
Vehicle Immobilisation
Cash and Valuables in Transit
Other
10%
5%
0%
18%
77%
41%
32%
10%
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 39
4.2.2 Size of business
36% of non-ACS respondents classified themselves as micro sized businesses,
while 26% said they were small, 37% medium and only 1% large.
4.2.3 Number of clients
The number of clients that non-ACS companies provide security for was broadly
spread, peaking at 11-25 (23%) and 6-10 (21%). Following this, 16% of non-ACS
respondents said that they provided security for 1-2 or 3-5 clients. Predictably,
only 1% of respondents said that they served over 300 clients.
Looking at subgroups, micro sized businesses (32%) were much more likely than
small (7%) and medium (8%) sized businesses to only provide security for 1-2
clients. Small businesses, were most likely to serve 6-10 clients (44%), while
medium sized businesses were more likely than others to serve between 11 and
300.
Company size
Base: All respondents (105)
Micro (up to 10 employees)
Small (11-26 employees)
Medium (26-250 employees)
Large (over 250 employees) 1%
37%
26%
36%
How many clients do you provide security for?
Base: All respondents (105)
1-2
3-5
6-10
11-25
26-50
51-100
101-300
Over 300
8%
6%
10%
1%
16%
16%
21%
23%
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 40
4.2.4 Client sites
The number of client sites covered by non-ACS businesses are spread in a similar
way to the number of clients served by the firms. 27% of respondents said they
covered 6-10 client sites, and 24% covered 11-25. 51-100 and 101-300 client
sites were both covered by 5% of non-ACS companies, while only 2% said they
covered over 300 client sites.
Predictably, micro businesses were more likely than others to only cover 1-2 and
3-5 client sites (33% and 25% respectively), while small companies were most
likely to cover 6-10 sites (44%). Medium sized businesses were more likely than
others to cover between 11 and 100 client sites.
There appears to be little correlation between the type of sectors covered by a
business, and the number of client sites they cover.
4.3 Questions about the ACS
This section looks at the responses of non-ACS companies when asked what
proportion of their clients require the ACS, if company turnover changed over the
past year, and how regularly work is gained from or lost to SIA approved
contractors. These questions were followed by a series of open-ended questions,
which examine the views of Non-ACS companies in more detail.
4.3.1 Proportion of clients that require the ACS
When asked what proportion of their clients require the ACS, 71% of non-ACS
respondents said 0-20%. 8% said that 21-40% of their clients required the ACS,
while 9% said 41-60%, 4% said 61-80% and 9% said 81-100%.
Across all sectors covered by non-ACS businesses, respondents were most likely
to say that 0-20% of their clients required the ACS. It was also the most
commonly selected answer across all sizes of business.
Number of client sites covered
Base: All respondents (101)
1-2
3-5
6-10
11-25
26-50
51-100
101-300
Over 300
7%
5%
5%
2%
15%
16%
27%
24%
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 41
4.3.2 Proportion of private sector clients
41% of non-ACS respondents said that 81-100% of their clients were private
sector, while at the other end of the scale 19% said that 0-20% of them were.
Looking at subgroups, no particular security sectors appeared to lend themselves
more openly to private sector clients. Across all sectors, 81-100% was the most
commonly selected proportion of private sector clients. Similarly, 81-100% was
the most commonly selected proportion by micro (50%), small (26%) and
medium (44%), although respondents from small companies were equally likely
to say that 0-20% of their clients were private sector (26%).
Proportion of clients that require the ACS
Base: All respondents (105)
0-20%
21-40%
41-60%
61-80%
81-100%
71%
8%
9%
4%
9%
Proportion of clients that are private sector
Base: All respondents (105)
0-20%
21-40%
41-60%
61-80%
81-100% 41%
19%
12%
14%
13%
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 42
4.3.3 Turnover over the past year
When asked, 58% of non-ACS respondents said that their turnover had increased
over the past year, 14% said it had decreased, and 28% said it had stayed the
same.
Companies which covered „public space surveillance‟ (80%), „Door supervision‟
(72%) and „Close protection‟ (70%) were the most likely to see an increase in
turnover in the past year, while those who covered „Key holding‟ (18%) and
„Other‟ (26%) were most likely to see a decrease. Companies covering „Vehicle
immobilisation‟ (40%) and „Security guarding‟ (27%) were most likely to see no
change in their turnover over the past year.
Small (67%) and medium (77%) companies were more likely to have seen an
increase in turnover over the past year than micro companies (34%), while micro
companies were more likely to have seen their turnover decrease or stay the
same (24% and 42% respectively).
4.3.4 Percentage change in turnover
When asked by what percentage their company‟s turnover had changed over the
past year, the most commonly selected answer was „No change‟ (27%). 23% of
non-ACS companies said that their turnover had increased by 11-25%, and 10%
said it had done so by 26-50%. Companies that experienced a decrease in
turnover were most likely to have done so by –50 to –26% (7%).
Change in company turnover
Base: All respondents (105)
Increased
Decreased
Stayed the same
58%
14%
28%
% change in turnover over the past year
Base: All respondents (105)
More than -50%
-50 to -26%
-25 to -11%
-10 to -6%
-5 to -1%
No change
1 to 5%
6 to 10%
11 to 25%
26 to 50%
More than 50%
1%
2%
7%
3%
4%
27%
8%
9%
23%
10%
9%
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 43
Companies which covered „Vehicle immobilisation‟ (20%) and „Door supervision‟
(14%) were the most likely to see an increase of more than 50%, whereas only
companies covering „Key holding‟ (3%), „Security guarding‟ (2%) and „Door
supervision‟ (2%) saw a decrease in turnover of more than 50%.
4.3.5 Work gained from SIA approved contractor
When asked how many times non-ACS companies had gained work from an SIA
approved contractor, the majority (59%) said never. 11% said they had seldom
gained work from an approved contractor, 22% said occasionally, 8% said
frequently, while no non-ACS respondents claimed to have done so consistently.
Companies which cover „Vehicle immobilisation‟ (80%) and „Public space
surveillance‟ (70%) were the most likely to have never gained work from an SIA
approved contractor. Micro sized businesses (18%) were less likely to have
occasionally or frequently gained work from an SIA approved contractor than
small (22%) or medium sized businesses (46%).
4.3.6 Work lost to SIA approved contractor
The majority (62%) of non-ACS respondents said that they had never lost work to
an SIA approved contractor, while 14% said they had seldom lost work, 16% said
occasionally and 8% said frequently. No non-ACS respondent claimed to have
consistently lost work to an SIA approved contractor.
How often gain work from an SIA approved contractor
Base: All respondents (105)
Never
Seldom
Occasionally
Frequently
Consistently
8%
22%
11%
59%
0%
How often lost work to an SIA approved contractor
Base: All respondents (105)
Never
Seldom
Occasionally
Frequently
Consistently
8%
16%
14%
62%
0%
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 44
Companies covering the „Vehicle immobilisation‟ (80%), „Key holding‟ (65%) and
„Door supervision‟ (65%) sectors were most likely to say that they had never lost
work to an SIA approved contractor. Conversely, companies covering „Close
protection‟ (30%), „Vehicle immobilisation‟ (20%) and „Public space surveillance‟
(20%) were most likely say that work had been frequently lost to competitors
that were SIA approved.
Micro sized companies (53%) were less likely to claim that they had never lost
work to SIA approved contractors than small or medium sized businesses (both
67%)
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 45
4.3.7 What does the ACS mean to you? (open ended)
A large proportion of respondents from non-approved companies said that the
ACS represents a high standard of quality and credibility to which they aspire.
However, respondents were equally likely to suggest that the ACS is an
expensive, unnecessary exercise, and a waste of their time.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"A costly way of already stating my company conforms to the law and
British standards which govern the quality standards that are already in
place. It is perceived by the industry as a duel standard to allow large
companies added benifit to work un licenced guards and that the benefits
seen by customers is limited. Most companies see the licencing on the
industry as just a glorified vetting resource."
"Another subscription
to pay - another
burden for small
companies"
"A quality stamp for
our staff and the
service we provide."
"ACS is confirmation that a
company does all that is
neccessary to protect the interests
of both its staff and clients."
"Far too expensive, I shall
consider this carefully in 2008
though, and I would like to see
the application procedures
simplified."
"An acreditation that will
eventually be recognised by
all industries."
"It is one way of trying to achieve a recognisable standard of operating and
administration procedures by security companies. Unfortunately, due to the
on going problems of trying to renew licences and the recent facts concerning
the incorrect issuing of licences to 11,000 people, the reputation of the SIA is
now such that no one has any confidence in their ability to carry out their
role, which includes the ACS scheme. Therefore at this moment in time the
ACS means very little to the operators or their clients."
"The idea is good, but it has
not changed anything in the
industry"
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 46
4.3.8 Are you considering applying for the ACS status? (open ended)
While a very large proportion of respondents said that they are considering, or
already in the process of applying for ACS status, a significant proportion also said
that they were not, and see it as a worthless exercise.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"It would appesar that an
increasing number of potential
clients want to use ACS
approved contractors so yes"
"No Up to £2400 for the
Application fee and £17/head
annual fee. Don't you make
enough from the licence fee?"
"We have been trying for 18
months with no success!!"
"Currently trying
to complete the
workbook"
"Not until the
cost is reduced
or part funded." "Yes we have been forced
to consider it due to the
impression given in the
market place."
"We are already doing so -
and frankly it hasn't been
easy!"
"Not yet. But I’m sure I’ll be
forced to do it at some point so
that the SIA can charge me for
the privilege."
"Yes I would like to but it's all down
to money"
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 47
4.3.9 Why have you not pursued gaining the ACS status? (open ended)
Respondents were likely to say that they had not persued the accreditation
because of financial reasons. Respondents suggested that the cost of becoming
accredited was too high, and offered minimal advantages in return. Respondents
also cited increased administration, and higher priorities as reasons for not
pursuing ACS status.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"As a small - medium company we have restricted resources and
time. Service to our customers and staff is our main concern. High
levels of supervision and service is our objective. We hope to allocate
time for this project in the new year."
"Because of difficulties
with paperwork and
payments."
"i have been waying up the pros and
cons in regards to ISO or ACS and
every time i have spoken to a person
from the SIA no one have been able to
convince me this would be of benefit or
the better option for me as a
company."
"Lack of information on
whats required and more
guidance needed from
SIA."
"cost paper work to many forms. everthing with
SIA moves so slowly."
"due to the high fees for
small businesses i.e
certification and
assesment fees"
"Small return on the investment and the target
customers do not require it as opposed to ISO9001
which has transferability across all business
sectors."
"We carry out
surveillance training
and surveillance work.
This is not yet a
licensable activity
under the SIA"
"time and money"
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 48
4.3.10 What do you consider to be the main benefits of the ACS? (open
ended)
A large proportion of respondents said that ACS accreditation would give them
recognition within the industry, and could allow them to be considered for more
jobs. A smaller proportion suggested that the ability to deploy 15% of staff on
LDNs was a considerable benefit. Others said that as yet, they saw no benefits to
their company of becoming an approved contractor.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"Asists in aquisition of new clients
and provide bench mark to wich
to work to"
"It will allow us to distinguish
ourselves from the
competition. We will be
members of an elite group of
companies governed by the
main body in the u.k, the
s.i.a."
"As of yet nothing as there are companies
listed that should not have the status
through their Directors past history and
company trading history. These are the
type of old school nobody wants. Cash jobs
below minimum wage etc."
"Clients confidence in our
business giving us a
degree of credibility."
"Industry recognition. Ability
to employ up to 15% of staff
without badge who have
already undertaken training."
"Being a recognised company, proving to
clients that we have quality mamagement
systems in place and that our staff are of a
high standard and that we deliver a first
class service."
"Recognised industry
accreditation"
"The cowboy companies being
removed from tradeing"
"We can more focus on quality Control and can more
organize our business as per the British satndards"
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 49
4.3.11 What benefits do you think the ACS has brought to the security
industry? (open ended)
A significant number of respondents suggested that the ACS has brought
credibility to the security industry, and provided a common standard for
companies to aspire to. Others stated that it has helped reduce the number of
illegal operators in the industry. However, a significant proportion of respondents
suggested that the ACS is yet to bring any benefits to the industry, and has
simply increased the cost of operating within it.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"A huge amount, but very difficult for
start up companies, cost not affective
if you have no contracts"
"Due the lack of
confidence in the SIA it
is hard to imagine any
benefits at this time."
"Created a higher level of
awareness in customers"
"It has given the larger players in he industry an even bigger slice
ofthe financial cake, but has done nothing for the smaller
independent companies other than reduce the availability of many
local authority and major commercial opertunities that where once
available."
"It has without question raised
standards."
"None as far as we can tell, other than
some fat fees for the accreditation
bodies. Our clients have virtually no
awareness of the SIA and certainly none
of the ACS. What awareness they do have
is entirely negative, given the recent
adverse publicity over illegal migrant
labour. We now play down our SIA
'credentials' for fear of being deemed a
bunch of incompetent halfwits, by
association."
"A transparent accreditation which allows
non industry experts (customers) to
determine which is a reputable supplier
and which is not necessarily"
"Proffesionalism and
getting rid of some of
the ill prepared
companies that give the
industry a bad
repretation"
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 50
4.3.12 Has the ACS helped to raise standards in the security industry overall?
(open ended)
Opinion of non-ACS companies seemed to be fairly evenly split between those
who thought the ACS has helped to raise industry standards, and those who feel
the scheme has had no effect. A small proportion of respondents suggested that
the public could now have more confidence in the security industry as a whole, as
they know that certain standards must be achieved. Others suggested that
standards were already high in their area, and as such, the ACS has had little
impact.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"It is nationally and
internationally recognised
and accepted."
"It has had no impact in raising
standards at all, infact standards
have probably dropped through
companies having to take short
cuts to try and address the
financial penalty."
"100% yes. Every legitimate firm
should work towards the ACS and this
will in turn clean up the industry. Each
firm will strive towards this goal and will
only better themselves and provide a
better service to their clients"
"Not really, every man and his
dog just wants to put the logo on
their letterhead with little to show
for it"
"No. Large companies with
ISO had the opportunity to
fast-track. Small companies
had to play 'catch-up'."
"Without doubt the standards
have raised. As a training
provider this is clear to see"
"At this moment in time there are
too many standards to achieve the
ACS is just another one to work to
and is difficult for small companies."
"Yes, by setting clear benchmarks which companies have to achieve to gain
ACS approval, the ACS has enabled companies to focus on delivering quality
of service to the customers and ensuring their own workforce are suitably
trained and clear about their own company standards."
"Yes it has shown that there is
an independent regulatory body
which should give confidence to
end users"
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 51
4.3.13 In your view what have the public gained from the ACS? (open ended)
Once again a significant proportion of respondents stated that the public have not
gained anything from the ACS, and that few are aware of its existence. However,
a number of respondents suggested that the public have gained a more
professional service, and now have more confidence in the industry as a whole.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"Better service, piece of mind, dealing
with companies who have the right
systems in place to help them and
consistancy."
"A false impression that companies
with ACS are better service
providers than those who do not
have ACS"
"Higher costs for security
cover from the major
companies, an even tighter
budjet for the smaller
companies"
"Initially it should have given
them some confidence in any
company that was ACS.
However, I believe that they
gain very little."
"Confidence in those who have
achieved the standard."
"A better understanding of what to expect from
a security officer and security company."
"It seems the public feel the
ACS is a form of qulity
assurance."
"NOTHING, They still view the
industry as ex - criminal elements
working in the industry, foreign
people gaining licenses without
proper checks being carried out."
"Most members of the public would not recognise
any change. It is more important within the
industry and for companies seeking security staff
that standards have been set and monitored."
"The confidence to be able
employ the services of a
company knowing they
have been vetted by a
governing body of repute."
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 52
4.3.14 What is the general perception of the ACS within buyers of security
services? (open ended)
A very large proportion of respondents suggested that their buyers are either
unaware of the ACS, or often choose to ignore the accreditation in favour of lower
costs. Other respondents suggested that those buyers who are aware of the
scheme view the ACS favourably, and suggest that it represents a certain quality
benchmark.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"An organisation which is capable of
pointing to providers of high quality
service within the industry."
"Better standard of
personal and
management back up
as we wish to keep
contracts so try harder
to please the
customer."
"52% of the people we work with do not know
who the ACS are and when explained, they are
thankfully more interested in the merits of us as
an individual company, rather than what the
ACS stands for."
"As far as i am aware there are
very few people with any
knowledge of what it is about
and it has made people who are
buyers of security services very
weary of the SIA"
"It is a quality
approved stamp."
"Higher standard of delivery, however it is
the belief that in the begining anyone could
get it and so it has been devalued"
"As mentioned, our clients don't know and
really don't care. As always they want the
service at the lowest possible price."
"Just becoming an issue
now! Until now, buyers
were just not informed!"
"They will go for price rather than
any qualifications or degree of
professionalism"
"The majority of prospective buyers
of security are mainly unaware of
ACS, however, most realise that
secuirty officers require a license."
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 53
4.3.15 What are the most important changes you would like to see made to
the ACS? (open ended)
The responses of non-ACS companies varied greatly in this instance, as a wide
variety of potential changes were cited. The most common answers included
making the ACS compulsory for all contractors, improving communication,
reducing the costs associated with the scheme, and simplifying and speeding up
the application process.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"A vast reduction in
the cost"
"I think that the requirtements for very
small companies should be eased and
the burden of paperwork reduced."
"Easier, faster and more responsive application procedure from
begining to end. The cost of application is far too high for the
percieved rewards of being in the ACS programme."
"Compulsory for all"
"Accessable to all companies, instead
of being based on the number of
employees. By this I mean, take
casual staff into consideration."
"Cheaper for smaller
companies - more expensive
for larger companies"
"More awareness and
enforcement"
"Lets have it more in the public
domain, lets see the companies who
have the NSI awards automaticaly
enterd onto the ACS as they have been
playing by the rules for years."
"The benefits should be free of charge.
The ACS should have an enforceable
code of conduct."
"More user-friendly, more
cost effective. Possible
pass-porting scheme for
NSI Gold inspected
companies."
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 54
4.3.16 Are there any other observations or feedback you would like to submit?
(open ended)
While a large proportion of respondents had nothing more to add, there was a
great deal of variation among the responses that were given to this question.
Common answers included complaints about companies employing illegal
immigrants, as well as the notion that it should be easier and quicker for
companies to become accredited and that the SIA‟s communication needs to be
vastly improved.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"To smaller companies the initial
finincial is outlay is prohibitive and
there should be some sort of
incentive to become approved."
"More efficient working of
online self-assessment."
"An SIA mentor would be useful to companies
applying. Trying to get through to the SIA to
discuss anything takes far too long"
"We will join at some stage in
2008, and realise that the
sooner we do the better, it
will help our growth in 2008,
but it is just getting the
money towards the costs."
"Please do not bother me
with any further surveys as
they are a waste of time you
people do not listen or care"
"The scheme is to dispose of the cowboy eliment of this industry, but my
company has been providing services for over 20 years to a large number of
well known companies in our area, yet the scheme is out of our reach
financially. Companies have offered us work over national companies who
are ACS approved because they mention that we provide a more personal
service and sometimes better service than the ACS companies."
"As usual poor comunication to and from the SIA
phones not answered emails not replied to with
queries. This adds aditional cost to companies
trying to gain Approval. As usual the biggest
barrier is the SIA its self."
"Yes on paper this is a fantastic idea in reality we will
have to see"
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 55
5 BUYERS OF SECURITY
5.1 Introduction
This section of the report looks at the questionnaire sent to buyers of security,
and the responses of those companies that took part. It looks at the profiles of
buyers, and their responses to various questions about the scheme.
5.2 Company profile
This section of the report profiles buyers of security by sectors covered, company
size, and how many security providers they use.
5.2.1 Sector(s) covered
71% of buyers said that their business covered the private sector, while 48% said
they covered the public sector. There appeared to be no relationship between the
size of business and the sectors covered.
5.2.2 Size of business
Buyers of security were most likely to be medium sized businesses (37%),
followed by micro (29%), large (19%) and finally small (15%).
Company size
Base: All respondents (75)
Micro (up to 10 employees)
Small (11-26 employees)
Medium (26-250 employees)
Large (over 250 employees)
29%
15%
37%
19%
Sectors covered
Base: All respondents (75)
Private
Public 48%
71%
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 56
5.2.3 Number of security providers
The majority of buyers (53%) said that they only used one security provider,
while 16% said they used two, 7% said they used three, 4% said they used four,
and 20% used five or more.
Micro sized businesses were more likely to use just one security provider (68%),
compared to small (45%), medium (46%), and large sized businesses (50%). No
Micro sized businesses used three security providers, while no small or medium
sized companies used four providers.
5.3 Questions about the ACS
Buyers of security were asked what proportion of their providers are ACS
approved, how frequently security provider contacts are reviewed, and if their
policies allow the use of non-approved contractors. These questions were followed
by a series of open-ended questions, which examine in more detail buyers‟ views
on the scheme. This section of the report looks at their responses.
5.3.1 Proportion of ACS approved security providers
When asked what proportion of their security providers are ACS approved, one
third of buyers (33%) said they used no approved providers. At the other end of
the scale, a quarter (25%) of buyers said that 100% of their security providers
were ACS approved.
How many security providers do you use?
Base: All respondents (75)
1
2
3
4
5+
53%
16%
7%
4%
20%
Proportion of ACS approved security providers
Base: All respondents (75)
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
12%
16%
13%
33%
25%
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 57
Large businesses (50%) were more likely to use no ACS approved security
providers, compared to micro (32%), medium (29%), and small sized businesses
(27%). Micro sized businesses (27%) were more likely than others to have 25%
of their security providers ACS approved, while small (27%) and medium sized
businesses (25%) were the most likely to have 50% of suppliers approved. Small
businesses (27%) were more likely than the other sized businesses to use 75% of
approved suppliers, while medium (29%) and large (29%) businesses were most
likely to have 100% of their security suppliers approved by the ACS.
5.3.2 Frequency of security providers contract review
When asked how frequently buyers of security review contracts with security
providers, 36% said they did so every 0-6 months. Almost one third of buyers
(32%) said they reviewed security provider contracts every 7-12 months, while
15% did so every 2 years, 12% every 3 years, and 5% every 4 years.
When looking at results across subgroups, there appeared to be no difference
between how often public and private sector respondents review contracts with
their security providers. However, micro sized businesses (59%) were much more
likely to review contracts every 0-6 months than small (36%), medium (29%),
and large buyers (14%).
Frequency of security providers contract review
Base: All respondents (75)
0-6 months
7-12 months
Every 2 years
Every 3 years
Every 4 years
12%
15%
32%
36%
5%
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 58
5.3.3 Use of non-approved contractors
49% of buyers said they had policies allowing the use on non-approved
contractors, while 51% did not.
When looking at sub groups, small businesses (73%) were more likely not to
allow the use of non-approved contractors when compared to micro (50%),
medium (43%) and large sized businesses (50%). Once again, there appeared to
be no significant differences between the policies of private and public sector
businesses.
Does your policy allow the use of non-approved contractors?
Base: All respondents (75)
No
Yes 49%
51%
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 59
5.3.4 Why does your policy allow the use of non-approved contractors?
(open ended)
Respondents who said that their policy allows the use of non-approved
contractors were asked why this was the case. The majority of respondents
suggested that approved contractors were often no better than unapproved, yet
they were more expensive. Some buyers suggested that they value relationships
built up over time with non-ACS companies, higher than the accreditation itself,
suggesting that the ACS scheme may not be as highly regarded by buyers as the
SIA would like.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"Reputation, Skill, Honesty, Price and track record mean more to us than
the ability to complete reams of government paperwork. We would rather
prefer that our suppliers concentrated on servicing our needs rather than
chasing yet another dubious form of accreditation"
"Not aware of benefits of
using an ACS"
"Because the ACS does not
guarantee quality of staff,
just quality of paperwork."
"Because of a lack of
confidence in the
approval scheme."
"We allow this for the simple reason that so long as the security operative carries
an SIA License then it simply does not matter weather the Security Company is
approved by the SIA. The fact is the SIA have already approved the operative as
he/she already carries a license."
"There are firms that comply with SIA but are
not Approved contractors. We have used
them for years and have no complaints or
problems with them."
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 60
5.3.5 What does the ACS mean to you? (open ended)
A significant proportion of buyers said that the ACS represents certain
professional standards within the industry, has given buyers more confidence and
is good for the industry as a whole. However, other respondents suggested that
the ACS means little to them and regard the accreditation as an expensive waste
of time and money.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"Approved Contractor Scheme, Becoming an approved contractor
makes you eligble or target bigger companies as well as
""highlighting"" how good you really are. Even though people within
the industry are aware no-one outside the industry has a clue what
SIA/ACS Means?"
"Nothing apart from
Security companies
have to charge more"
"Introduction of basic minimum
standards across the industry.
The licenses appear to be a
money generating initiative and
have suffered from a lack of
consistency of approach by
companies in their approach to
funding the licenses."
"A company that is commited to its
service delivery that is recognised and
approved to a protective minimum
standard for purchases of manned
guarding services."
"Red tape, extra cost & no
guarantees, another government
quango with no real purpose"
"It simplifies the recruitment
process and ensures compliance."
"Extra expense for ACS accredited
companies, which does not
necessarily mean better staff, just
a bigger paper trail."
"We feel that it is proberly a
good way forward, but a lot
of small company's, 'which
we use' cannot afford to be
assesed every twelve
months."
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 61
5.3.6 What are the advantages and disadvantages of using ACS companies
compared to non-ACS? (open ended)
A large proportion of buyers suggested advantages including the idea that ACS
companies were better managed, meet professional standards, and are more
reliable. However, disadvantages were also highlighted, including the opinion that
ACS companies are more expensive, require more paperwork, and don't
necessarily provide a better service.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"ACS companies are more
accredited and better managed
and than non ACS companies"
"Non ACS Companies are cheaper the ACS
Companies. The bottom line is COST and
we feel that if the guard is already licensed
then the SIA have already approved
him/her"
"All staff are legal to be on the
premesis and are 'officialy'
licensed"
"Disadvantage more expensive"
"Expect a high standard of compliance and
continual improvement with ACS"
"There is difference of organized, systematic,
and shows financial position of companies"
"The advantages are that as an
ACS company it will allow a
small portion of staff to work
while still waiting on SIA Licence
Dispensation Notice. The
disadvantages are if you are not
ACS registered you have to wait
until you recieve your licence
before you can work."
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 62
5.3.7 Standards in the private security industry
Opinion of buyers was fairly equally split when asked if the ACS has helped to
raise standards in the private security industry, with 52% agreeing, and 48%
disagreeing.
Large businesses were most likely to agree that the ACS has helped to raise
standards (64%), followed by micro (59%) and small sized businesses (55%),
while only 39% of medium sized businesses agreed.
Buyers that operate mainly in the private sector (57%) were more likely than
those in the public sector (47%) to agree that the ACS has helped to raise
security industry standards.
Has ACS helped to raise the standards in the private security industry?
Base: All respondents (75)
Yes
No 48%
52%
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 63
5.3.8 In what areas are the higher standards? (open ended)
Respondents who said that they „believe the ACS has helped to raise standards in
the private security industry‟ were then asked in what areas they thought
standards were raised. Some respondents suggested that standards had
increased across all areas of the industry, while others pinpointed more specific
areas including customer care and more professional staff.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"Basic entry standard of personnel.
Greater confidence in the
suitability of personnel"
"The illegal practitioners and
cowboy operators seem to be
closing down"
"Only those who are committed to
doing a good security job will
actually carry out training. Dress
standard, knowledge etc"
"Taking out the criminal
aspects."
"Training, quality of staff"
"Competence, awareness,
improvement and probity"
"Terms and conditions for officers,
quality of output from the teams, a
more proffessional approach with the
exception of support management level,
and this still remains an area of
weakness."
"Personnel quality"
"Calibre of security guards
provided."
"All security providers want to
get ACS approval as it is used
for marketing to gain
contracts."
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 64
5.3.9 In what additional areas would you like to see higher standards? (open
ended)
Buyers gave a wide variety of answers to this question, with little evidence of
common responses. Suggestions included tightening vetting requirements,
increasing enforcement, and giving security officers more powers.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"All security companys must have ACS
within 6 months of company opening or
they cannot trade, with tougher checks on
the management team behind the scene."
"It should a mandatory requirement for all security guarding
companies to be members of the scheme and should be
designed in such a way that it is not prohibitive for very small
companies to become members. This in turn would force
improved standards throughout the sector."
"Efficient training of staff with
multiple licences. Reduced licence
processing time."
"Industry wide enforcement to
reduce undercutting by rogue
operators"
"I would like to see higher standards in
dealing with general public enquiries
and the general awareness of the
specific area where these officers are
working"
"Communication and
conflict management"
"SIAs own standards, after
watching the TV
programme"
"Time taken by the SIA to handle
licence applications. Our clients who
have in house security staff
complain frequently of incompetance
and inefficiency at your offices"
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 65
5.3.10 What benefits do you think the ACS has brought to the security industry
overall? (open ended)
While some respondents suggested that the ACS has made the industry more
professional and raised minimum standards, a significant proportion claimed that
the ACS has brought no benefits to the industry as a whole.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"Greater awareness of regulation"
"Maybe created a few jobs
behind the scenes so that the
audit trail can be followed."
"Mainly it has to do with
not letting known
criminals work in the
industry that is meant to
be your security."
"A reassurance to anyone
requiring a professional security
service"
"I don't know about benefits
but it has certainly weeded out
the cowboy"
"Nothing but a hinderence"
"The ability to address issues, the
expectaion of a minimum level of service
across the board, to recognise the
companies that can give a minimum
standard of service delivery."
"Raised the perception
of security companies"
"NONE! As i said earlier the big companies that can afford the
money are able to buy the ACS by throwing money at any
issues raised in order to comply with the ACS. The smaller
firms are struggling to pay and are therefor not applying. The
smaller firms are often better quality of service. I personally
would not employ just on the basis of ACS."
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 66
5.3.11 In your view what have service users gained from the ACS? (open
ended)
A very large proportion of respondents said that in their opinion, service users
have gained nothing from the ACS, while fewer respondents suggested that users
have gained from increased professionalism and well trained staff.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"Reassurance that
security guards have
been vetted."
"Yet another icon on the
letterhead, and from an end
users point of view - Nothing"
"Simplified recruitment
from a customer
perspective of suitable
security staff"
"Additional costs and an officer
with one extra days training"
"Nothing”
"Nothing apart from
higher prices"
"What they have gained is a
higher standard of security
officer with proper training"
"ACS companies have agained a great deal of respect in general from
industry, there are still comapnies out there operationg that continue to
keep the name of security down and customers who will support that part
of the industry. To further move the industry forward and gain respect as
a clean industry we must enforce companies to report security officers
who have been dismissed for an offence within their respective
companies. I have experienced gross missconduct from an officer, he has
been removed from our facilities but we discover he has just been
relocated to another customer leaving him open to commit further
offences."
"All staff are well trained in their
duties as security personal. All
people have been screened for
criminal history so everyone is
legitimate law abiding citizens."
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 67
5.3.12 If you do not use ACS companies what would make you change your
mind? (open ended)
Some buyers suggested that they would use ACS companies if they could see that
they there was a benefit in doing so. Other common responses included the idea
that buyers may start using ACS companies if they lowered their costs and if
enforcement was increased. A significant proportion of respondents said that
nothing would make them change their mind about using ACS companies.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"Fairer pricing structure"
"If I could see the benfit to my
company which at the moment I can’t"
"More help for smaller
firms and a more
transparent criteria
allowing all firms to apply
and comply with checks
carried out on all owners
consultants ect."
"A more credible
approval scheme."
"More information from sia"
"Not applicable, I would not use a
non ACS company, ACS should be
mandatory for a company to trade
in my view."
"That all company's are
treated equally, wether
large or small."
"Having an effective system where
by the quality of the service
provided actually does improve to
me at the purchaser and my clients
as the service reciever."
"Nothing, as long as we get a high standard of service
from the company we can see no benefit of paying the
higher cost of employing an ACS company"
"If they give me a
professional response"
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 68
5.3.13 What are the most important changes you would like to see made to
the ACS? (open ended)
Common themes among responses to this question include the idea that the
scheme should be mandatory, that enforcement and regulation should be stricter,
and that communication needs to be improved.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"Avoid duplication of
training syllabus for
multiple license holders."
"Make the scheme mandatory for
all security operators if it is
deemed important to raising
standards within the industry."
"Less ambiguity and more continuity in the rules applied. I
would also like more authority given to inspectors when it
comes to giving the thumbs up on enquiries i.e. Qs. Can you
confirm that I am operating properly? And, No I cannot, I can
only react to any complaint that comes in and then tell you
whether it is right or wrong??"
"Faster response"
"1. The commitment from suppliers to report dismissed officers to the SIA. 2. Bring
in a minimum standard for terms and conditions for officers that gives an individual
a workable standard of living. 3. Bring the working week down to 48hrs, draconian
suppliers who thing offiers want 56hrs are misguided. Until it becomes compulsary
industry will use companies that do not comply with the WTD."
"I thing there needs to be better
comunication with the long standing
smaller firms and SIA help for them to
comply with the ACS. All the people
from Supervisory and up to be checked
the same as the men."
"Not to be a 'club' for
the companies that can
afford to join"
"That small company's are given
an equal chance to survive, and
are assesed every three years
instead of every year."
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 69
5.3.14 Are there any other observations or feedback you would like to submit?
(open ended)
As with the other general feedback questions, responses in this instance were
varied. While a large proportion of respondents said that they had nothing to add,
other responses included complaints about illegal immigrant workers and the
SIA‟s slow administration, as well as concerns that the LDN system is being
abused.
Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is
available in the appendix.
"The administration has in the past been very slow in processing individual
and company applications whilst the adoption of license requirements has
been swift. This was particularly the case for CCTV licensing. This made it
very difficult for organisations to continue operating within the law as
there was an initial shortage of qualified staff."
"When companys get reported
for illegal activity, for the sia to
take action immediatly. It
seems the sia was set up to
make money out of the legal
security companys, yet fail to
deal with the illegal ones???"
"The process of contractors
becoming ACS approved is
expensive and the cost is passed on
to us as clients and it actually offers
us no increased level in service for
that increase in cost. It would
appear to be an ineffective system"
"Concentrate on what you do well - ie vetting - that is
what people are worried about, not whether an
employer runs appraisals every six month. I need to
be able to reassure clients that the staff security firms
put in their buildings are A. Licensed B. Vetted and
skilled appropriately for the job C. Not here illegally"
"Yes not enough
customer focus"
"I just want to know why the new
company cannot apply or qualify
for ACS before 6 months"
"How have illegal
immigrants been issued
with SIA licences? I
thought that was the whole
point of the SIA checks and
verification before issuing a
licence?"
"The SIA helpline 0844 892 1025 needs more staff. 3 doormen at
my establishment came in on Monday to use the phone and were on
hold for 1 hr 45 mins before they gave up. None have worked since
November due to the Licence even though applications were
submitted in Sept Oct 2007. I have guys on at the moment who
where unfamilier with the locals and those who cause trouble."
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 70
6 COMPARATIVE QUESTIONS
A number of questions appear in all three surveys, and as such their responses
are comparative. This section looks at the comparative questions and analyses
the responses of the different respondents groups. The majority of this section
focuses on the responses of ACS and non-ACS companies, as only one coded
question from the buyers‟ survey is comparable across the three surveys.
6.1 Company profile
This section compares the profiles of ACS and non-ACS companies by sectors
covered, number of clients and number of client sites covered. It also looks at the
responses of all three respondent groups in terms of company size.
6.1.1 Sector(s) covered
When looking at the sectors covered by both ACS and no ACS companies, it is
clear that in both cases, the sector covered most commonly is „Security guarding‟
(92% and 77% respectively). Respondents from non-ACS companies were more
likely to cover „Door supervision‟ (41% vs 26%), while those from ACS companies
were more likely to cover the „Key holding‟ sector (47% vs 32%).
Sectors least likely to be covered by both ACS and non-ACS companies were
„Close protection‟ (7% vs 10%), „Vehicle immobilisation‟ (6% vs 5%) and „Cash
and valuables in transit‟ (2% vs 0%). A larger proportion of respondents from
non-ACS companies (18%) than ACS (6%) said that they covered sectors
catagorised under „Other‟. So, the majority of both ACS and non-ACS companies
appear to be focussed on the „Security guarding‟, „Key holding‟ and „Door
supervision‟ sectors.
Sector(s) covered
Base: ACS and Non-ACS respondents (226)
Total
ACS
Non-ACS
85 40 33 17 8 51 12
92 47 26 23 7 6 2 6
77 32 41 10 10 5 18
Security Guarding
Key holding
Door Supervision
Public Space Surveillance (CCTV)
Close Protection
Vehicle Immobilisation
Cash and Valuables in Transit
Other
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 71
6.1.2 Company size
This question was common to all three surveys, so results can be analysed across
all three respondent subgroups. It is clear that all companies, regardless of
respondent group were most likely to classify themselves as medium sized. Non-
ACS companies were more likely to be either micro sized or small (62%) than
Buyers (44%) or ACS companies (17%). The fact that small or micro sized firms
were the least likely to be approved contractors appears to back up the concerns
of some respondents that it is harder for small companies to become accredited,
and that the cost and additional work required in doing so is too high. This is
echoed by the fact that only 1% of non-approved contractors classified
themselves as large, suggesting that it is easier for large companies to become
SIA approved. ACS respondents were the most likely to classify their company as
either medium or large (83%), compared to 56% of buyers and 38% of
respondents from non-ACS companies.
Total
ACS
Non-ACS
Buyers
22 18 46 15
4 12 60 24
36 26 37 1
29 15 37 19
Micro (up to 10 employees)
Small (11-26 employees)
Medium (26-250 employees)
Large (over 250 employees)
Company size
Base: ACS, Non-ACS and Buyer respondents (301)
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 72
6.1.3 Number of clients
There were clear differences in the number of clients served by ACS and non-ACS
companies. Respondents from non-ACS companies were significantly more likely
to serve between 1 and 10 clients (53%) than those from ACS companies (21%).
Conversely, approved contractors (26%) were more likely than non-approved
(9%) to provide security for over 100 clients. This is to be expected because as
stated above, approved contractors were more likely to be classified as medium
or large businesses (83%) than non-approved firms (38%).
6.1.4 Number of client sites
As expected, the chart produced when looking at the number of client sites
covered by ACS and non-ACS companies mirrors that of the number of clients
firms provide security for. For example, while non-ACS companies were
significantly more likely to cover between 1 and 10 client sites (57% vs 14%),
ACS companies were more likely to cover over 100 client sites (38% vs 7%). As
above, this was to be expected as ACS firms were more likely to be classified as
medium or large (83%) than non-ACS companies (38%).
Number of clients firms provide security for
Base: ACS Non-ACS respondents (226)
Total
ACS
Non-ACS
3 5 13 21 12 19 12 15
16 16 21 23 10 6 8 1
9 10 17 22 11 13 10 8
1-2 3-5 6-10 11-25 26-50 51-100 101-300 Over 300
Number of client sites covered
Base: ACS and Non-ACS respondents (226)
Total
ACS
Non-ACS
3 3 7 15 18 16 20 18
15 16 27 24 7 5 5 2
9 9 16 19 13 11 13 11
1-2 3-5 6-10 11-25 26-50 51-100 101-300 Over 300
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 73
6.2 Questions about the ACS
This section looks at the responses of ACS and non-ACS companies when asked
about changes in company turnover, what proportion of their clients require the
ACS, and how regularly work is gained or lost. These questions were followed by a
series of open-ended questions, which compare and contrast the views of
respondents from all subgroups on various elements of the scheme.
6.2.1 Proportion of clients that require the ACS
Respondents from both ACS and non-ACS companies were asked what proportion
of their clients required the approved contractor status. Although it could be
expected that the majority of non-ACS companies would say that 0-20% of their
clients (71%) do not require the approved status, more surprisingly 47% of
approved contractors also said that this was the case. This seems to suggest that
the industry does not value the ACS as highly as the SIA would like, and that
buyers may value lower prices above accreditation.
Predictably, respondents from ACS companies (32%) were more likely than those
from non-approved companies (12%) to say that over 60% of their clients require
the ACS. However, it is possible that this question may have caused some
confusion among respondents because if clients of non-ACS companies required
the accreditation, then by default they would not become clients of non-ACS
companies. In order for this to make sense, it is possible that respondents may
have included potential clients who eventually decide not to use their services, in
their definition of „clients‟ for this question. It is also possible that although some
clients may say they only use approved contractors, in reality they use non-
approved too.
Proportion of clients that require the ACS
Base: ACS and Non-ACS respondents (226)
Total
ACS
Non-ACS
58 8 10 8 15
47 9 12 12 20
71 8 9 4 9
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 74
6.2.2 Proportion of private sector clients
Looking at the results of ACS and non-ACS companies combined, it appears that
around half (49%) of all businesses said that 81-100% of their clients are from
the private sector. However, respondents from ACS companies (56%) were more
likely than Non-ACS companies (41%) to say this was the case. In fact, ACS
companies were significantly more likely to say that over 60% of their clients
were from the private sector (78%) than non-ACS companies (54%).
Non-ACS companies (19%) were more likely than ACS (7%) to say that 0-20% of
their clients are from the private sector, suggesting that the ACS may be more
highly valued in the private sector than the public. It is possible that this is
because public sector organisations are working to tighter budgets than private
sector firms, or because they are not accountable to private shareholders and
other stakeholders in the same way as private businesses. However, further
research involving larger samples of both ACS and non-ACS companies would be
needed in order to back up these assumptions.
Proportion of private sector clients
Base: ACS and Non-ACS respondents (226)
Total
ACS
Non-ACS
12 8 12 18 49
7 5 11 21 56
19 12 14 13 41
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 75
6.2.3 Change in company turnover
Although the questions asked of ACS and non-ACS companies in this case differ
slightly, the responses are still comparative to a degree. Respondents from ACS
companies were asked „Has your company turnover increased, decreased or
stayed the same since you became an approved contractor?‟ while non-ACS
companies were asked „Has your company turnover increased, decreased or
stayed the same over the past year?‟. Clearly these questions are not directly
comparable as ACS companies are equally likely to have achieved approved
status in the past 6 months, as they are to have done so 2 years ago. This should
be considered when interpreting these results.
Responses from ACS and non-ACS companies were similar in this case, although
non-ACS companies (58%) were slightly more likely than ACS (51%) to say they
saw an increase in turnover. ACS companies (36%) were more likely than non-
ACS (28%) to say that their turnover had stayed the same, while similar numbers
of respondents from both subgroups said that they had seen an increase in
turnover (13% vs 14%). The fact that more non-ACS companies said they saw an
increased turnover than ACS firms suggests that the approved status doesn't
necessarily allow firms to compete for and win more jobs than those who are
unapproved.
Change in company turnover
Base: ACS and Non-ACS respondents (226)
Total
ACS
Non-ACS
54 14 32
51 13 36
58 14 28
Increased Decreased Stayed the same
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 76
6.2.4 Proportion of turnover change
As above, ACS and non-ACS respondents were asked slightly different questions,
so the results were not directly comparable, meaning caution should be taken
when interpreting the results. As before, ACS respondents were asked by what
proportion their turnover had changed since becoming an approved contractor,
while non-ACS companies were asked about turnover change over the past year.
The responses of ACS and non-ACS companies appeared quite similar in reply to
this question, with „no change‟ (31% vs 27%) and an increase of 11 to 25% (15%
vs 23%) being the most commonly selected options by both subgroups. Non-ACS
companies were slightly more likely to report a decrease of over 25% (10%
compared to 4%), or an increase of over 25% (18% compared to 12%) than ACS
companies. It is possible that non-ACS companies were more likely to see activity
at the extremes of the scale because they were also more likely to be small or
micro sized businesses (62%) than ACS companies (17%), and as such, they
could be more prone to periods of unstable business, or rapid growth.
Other notable differences included the fact that more ACS companies (17%)
reported an increase in turnover of 6 to 10% than non-ACS firms (9%), while
non-ACS respondents were more likely to see an increase of 11 to 25% (23% vs
15%).
Proportion of turnover change
Base: ACS and Non-ACS respondents (226)
Total
ACS
Non-ACS
2 5 3 3 3 29 10 13 19 9 6
1 3 4 4 2 31 12 17 15 8 3
3 7 21 4 27 8 9 23 10 9
More than -50%
-50 to -26%
-25 to -11%
-10 to -6%
-5 to -1%
No change
1 to 5%
6 to 10%
11 to 25%
26 to 50%
More than 50%
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 77
6.2.5 Work gained
ACS companies were asked „How many times has you company gained work from
a contractor that is not SIA approved?‟ while non-ACS respondents were asked
the same question with regards to approved contractors. Once again, although
slightly different questions were asked in this instance we are still able to
compare the responses of ACS and non-ACS companies to a certain degree.
While 59% of non-approved respondents said that they had never gained work
from approved firms, only 31% of approved firms said the same about their
counterparts. ACS companies were more likely to say that they had occasionally
gained work (36%) than non-ACS companies (22%), while no respondents from
non-approved companies said they had consistently gained work from approved
firms (compared to 5% of ACS companies). This suggests that ACS companies are
more likely to have gained work from non-approved firms than the other way
around, implying that a number of buyers value the accredited status of ACS
companies.
It should be noted that question assumes that companies are aware of instances
when they have gained work from approved or non-approved contractors, as
opposed to circumstances when they would have won the work regardless of their
SIA status.
How often gain work from approved /non-SIA approved contractors
Base: ACS and Non-ACS respondents (226)
Total
ACS
Non-ACS
44 19 30 5 3
31 25 36 3 5
59 11 22 8
Never Seldom Occasionally Frequently Consistently
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 78
6.2.6 Work lost
As in the previous question, respondents from non-ACS companies were asked
how often they had lost work to approved contractors, while ACS companies were
asked the same about non-approved contractors.
Responses for this question appeared to mirror those of the question above. For
example, while 62% of non-ACS companies said that they had never lost work to
approved firms, only 41% of ACS companies said the same thing about their
unapproved counterparts. ACS firms were more likely to say that they
occasionally lost work (31%), compared to only 16% of non-ACS companies.
While no non-ACS companies said that they consistently lost work, 2% of ACS
firms said that they did so.
While 44% of ACS companies said that they occasionally, frequently or
consistently lost work to non-approved contractors, only 24% of non-ACS
companies said the same about approved firms. This suggests that ACS firms are
more likely to lose work to non-approved companies than the other way round. It
is possible that this is because buyers are put off by the higher prices of approved
contractors, and opt instead for lower cost non-approved businesses. However,
these results appear to slightly contradict the responses of the previous question.
For example, while the majority of respondents from non-ACS companies
suggested they never lose work to approved contractors (62%), they also said
that they never gain work from them either (59%). It is possible that non-ACS
companies may assume that they only gain and lose work to other non-approved
contractors, suggesting that they are not even considered for work by some
buyers (who may require ACS status of all their contractors).
How often lose work to approved /non-SIA approved contractors
Base: ACS and Non-ACS respondents (226)
Total
ACS
Non-ACS
51 15 24 9 1
41 15 31 11 2
62 14 16 8
Never Seldom Occasionally Frequently Consistently
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 79
6.2.7 Main benefits of the ACS? (open ended)
ACS companies were asked „What are the main benefits of the ACS for your
company?‟ while non-ACS firms were asked „What do you consider to be the main
benefits of the ACS?‟.
Answers from both groups of respondents were very similar, with the idea that
the ACS gives a firm recognition within the industry and shows that they meet
certain quality standards appearing in both surveys. Both groups also mentioned
the ability to deploy 15% of staff on LDN‟s as a benefit. However, a significant
proportion of respondents from both approved and non-approved companies said
that they saw no benefits of the ACS, and suggested it was an expensive waste of
time. This suggests that some firms who joined the ACS expecting to see certain
benefits were left disappointed with the results, which in turn may have put off
other (non-ACS) firms from joining the scheme.
6.2.8 Has the ACS helped to raise standards in the private security industry?
(open ended)
Both ACS and non-ACS companies were asked this in the form of an open
question, while buyers were asked it in a coded format. Interestingly, opinion
appeared to be fairly even split on the subject across all three respondent
subgroups. While 52% of buyers suggested that the ACS has helped to raise
industry standards, 48% disagreed.
Respondents from both ACS and non-ACS companies said that standards had
been raised as the ACS encourages companies to meet certain quality standards.
However, respondents from both subgroups were just as likely to say that the
ACS has had very little or no impact on industry standards. Some respondents
from non-ACS companies suggested that this was the case because standards
were already high in their area.
6.2.9 What benefits has the ACS brought to the private security industry?
(open ended)
Respondents from ACS, non-ACS and buyers of security all suggested that the
ACS has brought a universal quality standard to the industry. Respondents from
ACS companies suggested that there was now increased awareness of the
security industry, while some buyers suggested that it made the industry more
professional as a whole. Again, a large proportion of respondents from all
subgroups said that the ACS has brought no benefits to the industry as a whole,
while some non-approved firms suggested it has simply increased industry-wide
operating costs.
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 80
6.2.10 What have the public gained from the ACS? (open ended)
This question was asked of both ACS and non-ACS companies. A large proportion
of respondents from both subgroups suggested that the public is generally
unaware of the ACS, and as such has gained nothing from it. This suggests that
the SIA need to do more to promote themselves, their image and their aims to
the public, in order to increase awareness and gain support. However, a number
of respondents from both groups also said that the public has gained confidence
in the industry, and now have a more professional service. There are some
positive messages here, although it is clear that the SIA has a lot of work to do in
terms of public image.
6.2.11 What is the general perception of the ACS within buyers of security
services? (open ended)
Both ACS and non-ACS companies were asked the question as worded above,
while buyers were asked „What does the ACS mean to you?‟.
Respondents from both approved and non-approved companies responded to this
question in the same way. While some respondents suggested that buyers viewed
the ACS as a quality benchmark, the majority suggested that most buyers were
not aware the accreditation, and that those who were choose to ignore it in favour
of lower costs. Looking at the responses of buyers, it is clear that ACS and non-
ACS companies are right to some degree, as some buyers did suggest that the
ACS represents professional certain standards within the industry, which they
would like their contractors to achieve. However, far more buyers appeared to be
aware of the ACS than approved and non-approved companies thought, although
many of them did admit to ignoring the accreditation in favour of lower costs.
Some buyers also suggested that they valued the trust based relationships they
have built up with non-approved companies over time, more than they valued the
SIA accreditation. This provides a huge challenge to the SIA and ACS.
6.2.12 What are the most important changes you would like to see made to
the ACS? (open ended)
This question was asked in all three surveys, and while there was a wide variety
of suggested changes, common themes across the three subgroups were
apparent. For example, a number of respondents from all surveys suggested that
the ACS should be made mandatory for all security contractors, in order to ensure
a minimum quality standard across the industry. Respondents from all subgroups
also suggested that the ACS needs to be more widely communicated and
promoted, in order to increase public awareness and interest in the scheme.
A number of respondents from both ACS and non-ACS companies said that the
financial cost, and amount of administration associated with the scheme should be
reduced, while other non-ACS respondents suggested that the application process
SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 81
should be simplified. Respondents to the buyers‟ survey were the only subgroup
to suggest that the enforcement and regulation of the ACS should be improved.
6.2.13 Are there any other observations or feedback you would like to submit?
(open ended)
This was the final question asked in each of the three questionnaires, and while a
significant proportion of respondents from all subgroups said that they had
nothing more to add, some common themes were apparent.
Respondents from all three surveys agreed that the SIA‟s communication needs to
be vastly improved, as do their slow administrative processes. Respondents
suggested that it should be easier to contact the SIA than it is at present, and
that the application process should be simplified and made more efficient.
Respondents from the non-ACS and buyers‟ surveys both complained about illegal
immigrant workers in the industry, while ACS respondents suggested that the
costs of becoming accredited should be reduced, and that the SIA should promote
the ACS further in order to increase public awareness.
While respondents have identified a number of issues, it appears that the majority
of these could be fairly easy for the SIA to address. For example, it is clear that at
the moment a significant proportion of respondents from all subgroups are
unaware of the potential benefits of the ACS, and as such view the scheme as a
waste of time and money. If the SIA focuses on communicating the benefits of
the ACS to all respondents (i.e. ACS, non-ACS and buyers), then this could help
to justify the cost and administration involved in becoming accredited, and
increase public awareness at the same time.