It is no secret that throughout Asia, many security managers and facility managers feel their security vendors provide an unsatisfactory service for both project implementation or system maintenance. Below is a list of the most common reasons that our clients have given over the years for deciding to replace their previous security services provider:
“We sensed the security vendor was not committed to supporting us for ALL our sites throughout Asia.”
Many of our clients felt frustrated that the service of their previous security vendor was inconsistent across regions. A typical complaint was that for certain sites, the security vendor was difficult to reach by phone.
For high level security sites where security system issues required an immediate response, being unable notify their security vendor about security issues was a major concern for our clients.
“We did not receive enough support from upper level management.”
Another common complaint was that there was no clear communication channel with the upper level management staff of the previous vendor. This made it difficult to provide feedback when the security vendor’s service was unsatisfactory.
“The vendor did not offer comprehensive training programs to their employees.”
Security companies with inadequate training structures are less likely to have a large number of certified engineers able to support major security management platforms. This makes it difficult to ensure that their technical staff is qualified to maintain their clients’ security systems effectively.
In this situation, system issues may be unresolved for a long time, which often caused serious vulnerabilities for our clients’ sites while they were working with their old security vendor.
“The vendor’s customer service administration infrastructure was underdeveloped.”
Detailed documentation is crucial to helping our clients assess security issues and take constructive actions. Security vendors that didn’t provide detailed documentation often did so because they did not offer a web-based customer relationship management (CRM) system to help them manage service cases effectively and generate standardized document templates.
Another common issue was that the vendor’s regional footprint was not developed enough, meaning that for many sites throughout Asia, there was an insufficient number of locally-based service engineers available to deliver maintenance support.
Insufficient support infrastructures were often a significant reason that the security vendor was unable to deliver a satisfactory service.
“The vendor had limited regional inventory management capabilities.”
Security vendors without comprehensive inventory management infrastructures such as regional product warehouses frequently find it difficult to control product lead times for system implementation projects or to provide emergency replacement products in the event of an equipment malfunction.
For this reason, many clients felt that they were getting inadequate support for either both project implementation or system maintenance from their previous vendor.
“Our end users had a poor customer experience.”
Many of our clients were unsatisfied with their previous security vendor because the individual end users in the company felt that the vendor’s employees lacked a customer service mindset and were generally unwilling to offer solutions proactively.
Clients were also unsatisfied when service engineers did not arrive on site within the guaranteed time period, or the vendor’s guaranteed response periods were too long. But one of the most important reasons given by our clients was the unhelpful attitude of engineers when they arrived on site.
A lack of a customer service mindset and a poor customer experience among the client’s end users were key factors that led our clients to consider other service providers.