Why security should be measured — and what to measure

A quiet month is pleasant, but it is not information. If you don’t know whether the patrols ran, whether posts were covered and whether guards reported what they saw, you cannot say whether the month was quiet thanks to the guarding or in spite of its absence.

The problem shows on the day something does happen. Then the question is not only “what happened?” but “was the work being done properly all the months before?” — and without measurement, nobody can answer.

A quiet month with no evidence of the work done is not a good month. It is an unknown month.

• Lagging: thefts, break-ins, damage, incidents with injuries. They tell you security failed — after it failed.
• Leading: patrols completed as planned, posts covered for every hour, observations reported (a door left open, a broken light), issues closed. They tell you whether the work is being done — before the incident.

On a single site, serious incidents are fortunately rare. That is why lagging indicators move slowly and say little from month to month. Leading indicators are produced every shift; that is where you first see something starting to slip.

• Execution: did you get what you pay for? Posts, patrols, reports.
• Response: when something happened, how fast it was handled, how fast you heard, and whether it was closed properly.
• Risk: where and when incidents and observations cluster, and whether that pattern is changing.

Measurements should come from the work itself, not from a second form filled in at the end of the shift. OVIT records posts, patrols, incidents and reports on the Guardly platform as they happen, so the client sees the same picture as the operations team.

• Same site, same period: compare with last month and with the same season last year, because many sites are seasonal.
• Patterns, not totals: ten scattered incidents mean something different from ten incidents at the same gate after 22:00.
• Note what changed: a new guard, a new route, building works. Without those notes, a shift in the trend can’t be explained.
• Read indicators together: what one suggests, another confirms or contradicts.

There is no single right number for every site. A shop, a warehouse and a hotel carry different risks; the useful target is your site improving against itself.

More recorded incidents do not necessarily mean worse security. Often they mean recording has finally started.

• Target “fewer incidents”: guards learn not to record. Reward reporting, not silence.
• Checkpoint scans only: the patrol becomes a dash from tag to tag with nobody looking around. Count the observations made along the route as well.
• Response speed only: issues get “closed” fast without being solved. Also measure whether the same issue reopens.
• Punishing every reported problem: the team stops reporting. Separate the mistake from the timely report of it.

The rule is simple: every indicator needs a second one that balances it, and every number is read in conversation with the team, not on its own. More on common mistakes in the guide to security KPIs.

The review brings the field and the client together around patterns, exceptions and the next decision. OVIT suggests starting with one site, one operating problem, and a shared way to measure whether it is improving.

So it doesn’t stay a good intention, write into the contract which indicators are measured, where they come from and how often the review happens — see security contract terms. The agenda for a monthly review is in the guide to security KPIs.