In the constantly changing realm of corporate security, businesses are regularly evaluating the most effective strategies to safeguard their personnel, assets, and information. There is often a belief that transitioning from private security to in-house security will be more cost-effective and will allow the business to develop a security program more closely tailored to their specific requirements. Let’s examine that perspective.
Expertise and Specialization
Unless the business operators have significant internal security expertise, private security firms will offer significant advantages in developing, structuring, and implementing a well-tailored and effective security program. These firms focus solely on security, so they have extensive experience and knowledge that businesses typically lack. They invest heavily in training, licensing, and staying updated on the latest security threats, which, in turn, enables them to provide highly trained personnel capable of handling various security challenges. Additionally, a good private security provider can customize security solutions based on specific business needs, ensure the effectiveness of the business’s overall security posture, and coordinate the training, scheduling, and licensing of the business’s security force. By contrast, building an in-house security team requires a significant investment to train and develop a security team, as well as build and implement a comprehensive security program.
Cost Efficiency
The common belief that insourcing a business’s security function can lead to cost efficiencies is usually mistaken. In reality, it is often more cost-effective to use private security services rather than building an in-house security function, once all costs are taken into account. The expenses for licensing and insurance, including the need for additional coverage, often outweigh any savings achieved through the private firm’s indemnification obligations.
Flexibility and Scalability
Private security services offer businesses flexibility by adjusting security staffing presence based on current needs or threats, while in-house teams may struggle due to fixed staffing levels and slower response times for recruitment and training. This difference can lead to potential gaps in protection during transitional periods. Furthermore, private security teams can more easily cover when an officer is sick or out on vacation without the business needing to hire a contractor to fill the temporary voids.
Technology and Innovation
Staying at the forefront of security technology is paramount in today’s environment. Private security firms have the resources to invest in cutting-edge technology, such as AI-empowered scheduling systems and workforce management tools. These firms continuously update their technological capabilities to meet evolving threats, providing clients with state-of-the-art security solutions.
In-house security teams, unless part of a large organization with substantial resources, may struggle for budget and, as a result, may be unable to keep up with technological advancements thus hindering their effectiveness.
Accountability and Performance
Contract security firms operate under service-level agreements (SLAs) that outline performance standards and accountability measures. These contracts provide businesses with clear expectations and recourse if standards are not met. Private security firms provide detailed reporting based on established client KPIs and conduct quarterly business reviews throughout the year. The competitive nature of the security industry also drives contract firms to maintain high-performance levels to retain clients.
In conclusion, in-house security should not be considered the best default option as it usually winds up costing more. Private security provides expertise, cost efficiency, staffing flexibility, advanced technology, and accountability, making it an attractive option for many organizations.
