How do you use Standard Operating Procedures(SOP's)?

Kia Ora,

So if you have them "How do you use Standard Operating Procedures?" & in that mix is why?

This comes back to the remark I made in the previous blog about my civilian counterparts commenting on how fast I thought.

At that site it all come down to their experience as there was no training given (& still isn't from comments of people there, training consisted of two days orientation)  & there were no SOP's.

I have said it before in these blogs an SOP is a guideline, not something that must always be adhered to as they do not fit every situation.

It was a point made to me by an ex army comrade at this complex & also came up more recently in the review of the Stanmore Road shooting by the police officer involved. The officer was criticized for not following SOP's.

A SOP is formed based on experience (theres that word again) for given situations, but will not cover every situation.

But by basing your training on them or even just having them & ensuring they are understood puts your staff way ahead of the rest.

That was why it appears at times when things are going real bad that  former military or police think faster than their civilian counterparts. In most NZ security companies they have no SOP's, so in lieu of that I know ex military personal come up with their own & each time they face a situation they formulate their own adhoc SOP's for similar situations.

When a situation is fast moving,those used to an SOP or that actually have them in place will automatically in their mind have gone through the steps & coming to say step four think, it doesn't fit this situation so next? The mind is already working & possible solutions are presenting themselves, where as those without them if they have never encountered such a situation will still be thinking of step one.

So this then comes back to what my ex army comrade said & the reaction to the police officer using his weapon.

My mates comment was we don't want SOP's here as they don't understand how they work & will make them  the bottom line.

You see that report on the police officer using his firearm. As an experienced police officer he has used his experience listening to what came over the radio & put himself in a position to be nearby if requried.


Because the individual in question was known to be using a type of weapon ( a hammer) the officer has obviously thought of  worst case scenario & armed himself. Not been prepared to order his officers to do something he himself is not prepared to do.

It also comes into question over risk assessment & his health & safety responsibilities.
As a police officer his duty is to protect the public & with no Tasers available at the time, he had to be prepared to use what was at his disposal.

He is said to have broken two SOP's, not informing Police comms where he was & not informing them he was arming himself.

So they are trying to make a SOP a bottom line & taking away the ability of those on the ground of making a decision based on factors in front of them.

It also flies in the face of facts.

Fact is criminals listen to the police radio & it is only recently that the police have started to use secure communications.

There used to be in Christchurch a well known police dog handler (happens to be ex army, equally well known in part for shooting the Tiger, although he claims it was his twin brother) who was well known for his trick of continually asking comms for directions to the place he was needed. He did this because he knew criminals listened in & more than one was surprised by a dog unit pulling up that was allegedly still some distance away.

Good training & SOP's can also have a great effect when  team works well together with little communication. People can form what in business is refered to as a master mind, where the combined minds seem to think as one.

The two times that really stick out for me was in the army during training although I did also experience it in Iraq & at times here in NZ in security.

In the first instance not a word was said as I turned to give a command as a situation developed it was obvious all were thinking the same & from the enemy party during debrief, who were thinking they were about to surprise someone else, got the shock of their lives when 8 of us appeared on their flank.

In the second incident it involved four words(his name & yeah got it) between myself & another section commander whom I had worked with over the years. But because our sections understood us, that was all it needed. Again the enemy party said they were totally surprised. From a health & safety aspect though a third party who shouldn't of taken action, did & in reality were probably shot by friendly fire.

That last part I find with many security groups in NZ. It is a common comment heard from ex military about these groups is they don't know team work & you don't feel safe.

It is not uncommon to have a situation develop where every other security person seems to be avoiding looking to back you, compared to the military where everyone backs you.

It comes down to health & safety again.

So in answer to the 'angry man' I am well qualified to comment on these areas thanks to superior training, experience, some common sense, knowledge & the fact I work in the industry & see how bad it is. I also see what has to be done & have the vision to see opportunities. 

Those factors outweigh any formal course or piece of paper. A blog is an opinion, mine is based on facts, common sense, experience & anybody can have an opinion.

Or as they say opinions are like rear ends everyone has one, some people just are one. Seems to me this person is trying to restrict my legal rights of freedom of speech.

I will answer his comments about my comments as to financial issues on one of those blogs.

    http://www.foxhoundsecurity.co.nz