The quality of a security service is often judged by the guard’s conduct. Do they arrive on time, do they look the part, do they communicate politely? These are important, but on their own they do not tell you whether the service is well organised professionally.
The decisive question is whether the guard knows exactly what their duties are. Do they know the entry rules, the patrol route, the key-handling procedure, the steps to follow in an extraordinary incident, and who to notify and when? None of this can rest for long on verbal handovers and individual habits. That is what guard instructions are for.
Guard instructions translate the client’s expectations into daily practice
A contract generally records what service the security company undertakes. Guard instructions are more detailed: they show how that undertaking has to be carried out on site, shift by shift.
Good instructions state not only that the guard must patrol, but along which route, at what intervals, what has to be examined, which irregularities must be reported immediately, and how the check is documented. The same applies to access control, handling suppliers or responding to alarms.
Where these details are not recorded, the service easily becomes dependent on the individual. One guard checks thoroughly, another simply walks the site. One reports a fault by phone immediately, another writes it in the log but notifies nobody. The problem here is not necessarily people’s attitude, but the absence of a common operating procedure.
Usable instructions cannot be written without a site survey
Guard instructions should not be produced from a generic template at a desk. The site, the daily processes and the client’s real expectations have to be understood first.
The survey should follow how employees, visitors and suppliers arrive; where keys are handed over; which areas require separate authorisation; when higher-value assets are left unsupervised; and which technical systems the service operates. Previous incidents matter too. A gate that repeatedly stays open, a camera that regularly fails, or a disputed goods-release process says far more about the real risk than a floor plan.
Good instructions therefore describe not only the area but the operation. That is what makes a document a newly arrived, properly inducted officer can follow.
The start of duty and the handover also have to be regulated
Many failures occur around the shift change. It is unclear who holds a key, whether a technical fault has already been reported, or how long a temporary entry permit remains valid. Guard instructions therefore have to cover how duty is taken over and handed on.
They should record what equipment and documents the guard takes over, what has to be checked jointly at the changeover, and which ongoing matters have to be passed on verbally as well. A handover is not just a signature: it is the point at which the next shift receives the current information it needs to operate.
Where the service covers several sites or posts, it also needs to be clear who consolidates the information and who is authorised to decide in the event of a discrepancy.
For access control, “must be checked” is not enough
Access control is one of the most common guarding duties, yet it causes a great deal of misunderstanding. It has to be defined clearly who may enter on their own authorisation, who has to be notified in advance, how visitors and suppliers are handled, and what happens if someone is not on the list but an internal employee wants to let them in.
Vehicle traffic matters just as much. A different process is needed for staff parking, deliveries, machinery movements and occasional access. If the service has to check documents, loads or release authorisations, the client has to define precisely on what documentation, and at what discrepancy, the process must be stopped.
A security officer cannot invent their own rules. Their task is the consistent application of a predefined, lawful procedure approved by the client.
Patrols need a purpose, not just a route
A patrol is worthwhile when the guard knows what they are looking for. Walking round the building or the fence is not enough. The inspection points and the irregularities to watch for have to be defined.
On a construction site this might be the condition of machinery, fuel storage, damage to fencing, temporary electrical connections or the locking of gates. In an office building, doors and windows, plant rooms, fire doors and unauthorised presence may matter. In a retail environment, different considerations come to the fore.
Frequency has to be set sensibly too. Patrols that are too rigid, always at the same time, become predictable. Requirements that are too general cannot be verified. The aim is an arrangement that is traceable, documentable and matched to the actual risk.
In an emergency, the first few minutes need a clear order
During an alarm, fire signal, accident, intrusion or conflict there is no time to work out by telephone who can make a decision. Guard instructions must therefore contain a clear notification and escalation procedure.
They have to define the first safe action, who must be notified, in what order, when official or medical assistance is needed, and how the site is to be secured. It also has to be considered what happens if the first contact cannot be reached.
A list of phone numbers is not enough on its own. The guard has to know which incident belongs to which decision level. A window left open, an unknown person on site, and an incident involving personal injury do not call for the same procedure.
Instructions cannot grant wider powers than the law
Guard instructions regulate how the service operates, but they cannot create new powers of intervention. A security officer may only act within the framework of the applicable law, so it is particularly important that the client’s expectations do not conflict with that framework.
The handling of packages, vehicles, personal data, camera images and entry records is an area where imprecise instructions can create serious risk. It is not enough to write that “everything must be checked”. The method, the purpose, the authorisation and the handling of discrepancies all have to be clarified.
Training on legal detail cannot be replaced by a single paragraph. Guard instructions have to rest on proper professional preparation, and the provider has to document that the officer has been made familiar with the site rules.
Documentation is good when it helps reconstruct an incident
The instructions have to define what must be recorded in the guard log, the entry register, the key-handling sheet or the incident report. The aim is not to collect as much data as possible, but to document the necessary, factual information consistently.
An incident report has to show when and where the observation was made, what the guard found, what action they took, who they notified, what instructions they received, and how the matter concluded. Assumptions, judgements and unnecessary personal data should be avoided.
Where the service has access to camera images, entry data or other personal information, the data processing arrangements also have to be clearly regulated. Who may access it, how long may it be kept, to whom may it be disclosed, and how must a data protection incident be reported? These cannot be left to the discretion of individual guards.
Guard instructions are a living document
Instructions are not good merely because they were once drawn up and signed. Sites change: a new gate opens, the stockroom is rearranged, the shift pattern changes, a new camera system is installed, or an incident shows that the earlier procedure does not work properly.
The instructions then have to be reviewed. The same applies after a service launch, on a significant organisational change, on a recurring irregularity, or following an extraordinary incident. Amendments are best managed with a version number and an effective date, so that everyone works from the same document.
Guard instructions that read well on paper but have become detached from actual operations give a false sense of security. The aim is a document that can genuinely be used on site.
What should a manager check?
A short conversation can reveal how alive the system is:
- Can the guard describe their main duties in their own words?
- Do they know the notification order for extraordinary incidents?
- Are the contacts and locations in the instructions current?
- Is the documentation consistent with actual operations?
- Does the provider flag and incorporate changes in the operation?
If there are no clear answers to these, a new document is not necessarily what is needed. First the operation has to be put in order, and then described precisely.
Good guard instructions make the service predictable
Guard instructions are not an administrative annex but the operating basis of the daily service. They standardise duties, support induction, make performance verifiable, and reduce uncertainty in an emergency.
Viking Security draws up guard instructions after walking the site and understanding the risks and the client’s processes. The aim is not to produce a long document, but a regulated operation the service can actually follow.
Have a question? Request a free on-site risk assessment — we survey your property and give you a tailored quote, with no obligation.
